Standards
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we fix it and say so. This page is how to tell us, what we do about it, and a dated list of the material corrections we have made. The wider rules are in our editorial standards.
Report a correctionHow to report an error
- Use the "Report a correction" button on this page or on any article: it opens our contact form with a correction template. Tell us what is wrong and, if you can, what the right figure or date is and where it comes from.
- Sponsored and partner content is covered too: we fact-check it before it publishes and correct it afterwards.
How we correct
- A factual error is fixed where it appears, and the piece carries a dated correction note. We do not quietly edit a claim out of existence.
- When the same wrong fact appears on several pages, we fix it everywhere it appears and, where we can, add an automated check so it cannot come back.
- If a piece is wrong in its premise rather than its details, it is withdrawn, and its address says so instead of showing a blank error page.
- Material corrections (a wrong fact, figure or label a reader could have relied on) are listed below with the date. Typos and wording changes are not.
Who handles it, and how long it takes
- Corrections are handled by the founder, Jay Griffiths, not by the pipeline that wrote the piece.
- We read every correction report and aim to reply within a few business days. Once an error is confirmed we correct the page as soon as we can, and a material correction is logged here with its date.
Corrections log
Newest first. Dates are the day the correction went live (US Pacific time). 13 entries.
Found in our own review
The /funding-tracker headline and the homepage funding tile
What was wrong: The "last 12 months" private funding figure added up every row in our funding table. On 25 September it read $119.0B, of which about $75.4B was the SpaceX IPO, $10.0B a SpaceX tender offer and about $4.1B debt. It also counted a $5B defense round (Anduril Series H) as space funding.
What it says now: The headline counts private funding rounds into space companies only. IPOs, other public offerings, tender offers, debt, grants, acquisitions and rounds into companies not classed as space are listed beside it, labelled, and never added in.
Found in our own review
The /investors directory
What was wrong: The headline tile read "Combined AUM $7.3T": the firm-wide assets of 49 investors added together, $6.3T of it from Fidelity and T. Rowe Price, none of it space money. Each card's "Total Invested" summed the full size of every round a firm appeared in, IPOs and tender offers included, which read as the firm's own cheque.
What it says now: Both figures are gone. The directory shows what we can count: private space rounds each firm led or joined, by date.
Found in our own review
/industry-trends and the benchmark cards on /space-stocks
What was wrong: The trends were labelled "figures as of 2025" with no source on any figure. A re-check against 2026 sources found only 9 of 119 metric and evidence lines held up as written. Some were invented (for example "Descartes Labs acquired by AntiSec"), and every market forecast lacked a named source. Two /space-stocks benchmarks were wrong or unsourced.
What it says now: Every remaining metric and evidence line carries a source a reader can open and a date. The unsupported lines and forecasts were removed, and an automated check fails on any line without a source or date.
Found in our own review
Starship facts on 36 pages and data files across the site
What was wrong: Pages across the site described Starship as having reached orbit, treated Flight 13 as a revenue flight, or described a planned ship catch.
What it says now: All 13 Starship flights flown by then were suborbital and no Starship had been in orbit; Flight 13 was not a revenue flight; Flight 14 was NET 28 September pending FAA approval, with no ship catch planned. The site now reads these facts from one source file.
Found in our own review
Intelligence briefs and a history page
What was wrong: Three weekly briefs dated February 2026 were not drawn from real reporting and described events that did not happen (for example, a Starship booster reflown within 48 hours). A history page said Starship Flight 4 (June 2024) reached orbit; it was suborbital.
What it says now: The three briefs were deleted. The history page was corrected, and its old address forwards to the corrected page.
Found in our own review
/news-aggregator and /videos
What was wrong: /news-aggregator showed about 30 invented articles credited to real outlets. On /videos, 11 of 12 curated YouTube videos did not exist, including an invented Starship "Flight 6 launch to catch".
What it says now: /news-aggregator was taken down and now forwards to /news. /videos lists verified official uploads only, and an automated check guards the list.
Found in our own review
Lunar facts across the site, and /moon
What was wrong: Pages described Artemis III as a late-2027 Moon landing, carried SLS Block 1B and Block 2 figures after NASA dropped the Exploration Upper Stage, gave an out-of-date Gateway status, and froze the Artemis Accords count at 43. A 60-item fact-check of /moon also corrected dates, details and 16 dead source links.
What it says now: Artemis III is a 2027 Earth-orbit docking test and the first landing is on Artemis IV. The Accords count reads from one dated site figure. No tracker score, lead or projection changed in the fact-check.
Found in our own review
The Space Score rankings
What was wrong: The scores were hand-set values from February, while the page said every figure was computed and dated that day. The quarter label came from the calendar, so each quarter republished the same numbers.
What it says now: Scores are computed from sourced data by a published method, and each carries its coverage, confidence and measurement date.
Found in our own review
Mission debriefs
What was wrong: Some debriefs stated outcomes the launch record did not support: successful launches published as "scrubbed", and press events, a static fire and a rollout written up as scrubbed launches. The pages also said the debriefs were "human-curated"; they are AI-drafted.
What it says now: 18 debriefs were unpublished. Debriefs are written only for real launches with a recorded outcome, the outcome comes from the launch record, and the pages say they are AI-drafted.
Found in our own review
/jobs, /space-environment and Mission Control
What was wrong: 62 illustrative job postings were re-created daily with fresh dates and listed as real openings. The solar flare forecast on /space-environment was randomly generated. Mission Control's Deep Space Network, EPIC and NASA image panels fell back to invented captions and telemetry.
What it says now: The illustrative postings were deleted. The flare forecast is NOAA SWPC's published 3-day probability with its issue date, or says it is unavailable. The Mission Control panels show real data or nothing.
Spotted by our editor
Launch pages
What was wrong: A panel headed "Live Telemetry" with a pulsing LIVE badge showed generated numbers over one generic two-stage ascent curve, drawn the same for every vehicle. It was neither live nor telemetry.
What it says now: The panel is labelled "Illustrative Ascent Profile" and says it is a generic reference curve, not this vehicle's flight plan and not measured data.
Found in our own review
Search snippets and page descriptions
What was wrong: Seven served figures were wrong, among them: Artemis Accords signatories (said 61, was 71), 2025 orbital launches (said 230+, was 324), active satellites (said 10,500+), and a Rocket Lab vs SpaceX comparison that said 55+ Electron and 300+ Falcon launches.
What it says now: Each figure was corrected against its source, including the comparison table on the Rocket Lab vs SpaceX page.
Found in our own review
The Blue Origin vs SpaceX guide and New Glenn comparison pages
What was wrong: The guide said New Glenn "lost its third vehicle in April 2026" and "has not yet reflown a booster".
What it says now: NG-3 on 19 April 2026 was New Glenn's first booster reflight. The pages were corrected against the record.
Questions about a correction: contact us.