How SpaceX's rocket diplomacy backfired in the Bahamas
NASSAU, Bahamas -- When SpaceX was negotiating a deal with the Bahamas last year to allow its Falcon 9 rocket boosters to land within the island nation's territory, Elon Musk's company offered a sweetener: complimentary Starlink internet terminals for the country's defense vessels, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The rocket landing deal, unlocking a more efficient path to space for SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9, was then signed in February last year by Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper, who bypassed consultation with several other key government ministers, one of the sources and another person familiar with the talks said.
Reuters could not determine the dollar value of the Starlink arrangement or the number of vessels outfitted with Starlink terminals. The Bahamian military, mostly a sea-faring force with a fleet of roughly a dozen vessels, did not respond to a request for comment.
Reuters found no evidence that Cooper broke any laws or regulations in striking the deal with SpaceX, but the people said the quick approval created tension within the Bahamian government.
By this April, two months after the first and only Falcon 9 booster landed off the nation's Exuma coast, the Bahamas announced it had put the landing agreement on hold. The government said publicly it wanted a post-launch investigation after the explosion in March of a different SpaceX rocket, Starship, whose mid-flight failure sent hundreds of pieces of debris washing ashore on Bahamian islands.
But the suspension was the result of the blindsided officials' frustration as well, two of the people said.
'While no toxic materials were detected and no significant environmental impact was reported, the incident prompted a reevaluation of our engagement with SpaceX,' Cooper, also the country's tourism chief, told Reuters through a spokesperson.
SpaceX did not respond to questions for comment. Cooper and the prime minister's office did not respond to questions about how the rocket landing deal was arranged.
SpaceX's setbacks in the Bahamas – detailed in this story for the first time – offer a rare glimpse into its fragile diplomacy with foreign governments.
As the company races to expand its dominant space business, it must navigate the geopolitical complexities of a high-stakes, global operation involving advanced satellites and orbital-class rockets – some prone to explosive failure – flying over or near sovereign territories.
These political risks were laid bare last month when Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government was considering taking legal action against SpaceX over 'contamination' related to Starship launches from Starbase, the company's rocket site in Texas, 2 miles north of the Mexican border.
Her comments came after a Starship rocket exploded into a giant fireball earlier this month on a test stand at Starbase. Responding to Sheinbaum on X, SpaceX said its teams have been hindered from recovering Starship debris that landed in Mexican territory.
Mission to Mars
SpaceX is pursuing aggressive global expansion as Musk, its CEO, has become a polarizing figure on the world stage, especially following high-profile clashes with several governments during his time advising U.S. President Donald Trump. More recently he has fallen out with Trump himself.
Starlink, SpaceX's fast-growing satellite internet venture, is a central source of revenue funding Musk's vision to send human missions to Mars aboard Starship. But to scale globally, SpaceX must continue to win the trust of foreign governments with which it wishes to operate the service, as rivals from China and companies like Jeff Bezos' Amazon ramp up competing satellite networks.
The company's talks with Bahamian officials show how Starlink is also seen as a key negotiating tool for SpaceX that can help advance other parts of its business.
According to SpaceX's orbital calculations, the Falcon 9 rocket can carry heavier payloads and more satellites to space if its booster is allowed to land in Bahamian territory. Meanwhile, Starship's trajectory from Texas to orbit requires it to pass over Caribbean airspaces, exposing the region to potential debris if the rocket fails, as it has in all three of its test flights this year.
SpaceX's deal with the Bahamas, the government said, also included a $1 million donation to the University of Bahamas, where the company pledged to conduct quarterly seminars on space and engineering topics. The company must pay a $100,000 fee per landing, pursuant to the country's space regulations it enacted in preparation for the SpaceX activities.
While SpaceX made steep investments for an agreement prone to political entanglement, the Falcon 9 booster landings could resume later this summer, two Bahamian officials said.
Holding things up is the government's examination of a SpaceX report on the booster landing's environmental impact, as well as talks among officials to amend the country's space reentry regulations to codify a better approval process and environmental review requirements, one of the sources said.
Arana Pyfrom, assistant director at the Bahamas' Department of Environmental Planning and Protection, said SpaceX's presence in the country is 'polarizing.' Many Bahamians, he said, have voiced concerns to the government about their safety from Starship debris and pollution to the country's waters.
'I have no strong dislike for the exploration of space, but I do have concerns about the sovereignty of my nation's airspace,' Pyfrom said. 'The Starship explosion just strengthened opposition to make sure we could answer all these questions.'
Starship failures rock islands
Starship exploded about nine and a half minutes into flight on March 6 after launching from Texas, in what the company said was likely the result of an automatic self-destruct command triggered by an issue in its engine section. It was the second consecutive test failure after a similar mid-flight explosion in January rained debris on the Turks and Caicos Islands, a nearby British overseas territory.
Matthew Bastian, a retired engineer from Canada, was anchored in his sailboat on vacation near Ragged Island, a remote island chain in southern Bahamas, just after sunset when he witnessed Starship's explosion. What he initially thought was a rising moon quickly became an expanding fireball that turned into a 'large array of streaking comets.'
'My initial reaction was 'wow that is so cool,' then reality hit me – I could have a huge chunk of rocket debris crash down on me and sink my boat!' he said. 'Fortunately that didn't happen, but one day it could happen to someone.'
Thousands of cruise ships, ferries, workboats, fishing boats, yachts and recreational sailboats ply the waters around Caribbean islands each year, maritime traffic that is crucial for the Bahamas tourism industry.
Within days of the explosion, SpaceX dispatched staff and deployed helicopters and speedboats to swarm Ragged Island and nearby islands, using sonar to scan the seafloor for debris, four local residents and a government official told Reuters. On the surface, recovery crews hauled the wreckage from the water and transferred it onto a much larger SpaceX vessel, typically used to catch rocket fairings falling back from space, the people said.
The SpaceX team included its vice president of launch, Kiko Dontchev, who emphasized in a news conference with local reporters that the rocket is entirely different from the Falcon 9 boosters that would land off the Exuma coast under SpaceX's agreement.
Joe Darville, chairman of a local environmental organization called Save The Bays, was angered by the Starship debris, as well as what he described as a 'deal done totally in secret' over the Falcon 9 agreement. As Bahamian waters become increasingly polluted and coral reefs shrink, he's unhappy with the lack of transparency in his government's dealings with SpaceX.
'Something like that should have never been made without consultation of the people in the Bahamas,' he said.
Pyfrom, the official from the Bahamas' environmental agency, said the review of the SpaceX report and the approval process will show 'where we fell short, and what we need to improve on.'
SpaceX, meanwhile, is forging ahead with Starship. Musk said earlier this month he expects the next Starship rocket to lift off within the next three weeks.
Reporting by Joey Roulette; editing by Joe Brock and Claudia Parsons, Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Forward
6 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
Global News
9 hours ago
- Global News
Rwanda reaches deal with U.S. to take upto 250 migrants, Reuters reports
The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to potentially accept hundreds of migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration. The agreement, under which Rwanda would accept up to 250 migrants, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Story continues below advertisement The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. 2:36 Venezuela releases 10 jailed Americans in prisoner swap with El Salvador Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect some of the most fundamental human rights. In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States. The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public. Story continues below advertisement Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. The Trump administration has pressed countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Rwanda signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges.
Globe and Mail
11 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Why Rocket Lab Might Be the Next SpaceX -- but With a Catch
Rocket Lab (NASDAQ: RKLB) is up 800% in just 12 months, riding a wave of hype, defense contracts, and bold ambitions to challenge SpaceX. But with no profits and an extreme valuation, is it a breakthrough or a bubble? Watch this before you invest. Stock prices used were the market prices of Aug. 4, 2025. The video was published on Aug. 4, 2025. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Should you invest $1,000 in Rocket Lab right now? Before you buy stock in Rocket Lab, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Rocket Lab wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Rick Orford has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Rick Orford
