A handful of updates for this week covering some previous reports and articles.
Shenzhou 22launches to Tiangong
In my previous Space Sunday article, I covered the unfolding situation aboard the Chinese Tiangong space station, where three tiakonauts – Zhang Lu, Wu Fei and Zhang Hongzhang – “stranded” on the station. This was because their Shenzhou 21 spacecraft had been used to return three other tiakonauts – Chen Dong, Chen Zhongrui and Wang Jie – to Earth after their vehicle was deemed unfit to bring them home following a strike by orbital debris, thus leaving the first three without a return vehicle.
At the time of writing that piece, I noted that China was ramping work on Shenzhou 22, originally due for launch with a crew in 2026, so it could launch to Tiangong in an uncrewed state to provide the three crew on the station with a return vehicle, and that this mission could launch as soon as November 25th.
This is precisely what happened, with the vehicle launched atop a Long March 2F/G rocket from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in northwest China at 04:11 UTC on November 25th (12:11 Beijing time). The vehicle, flying under automated control, rendezvoused with Tiangong at 07:50 UTC, less than four hours after launch.
As it was flying without a crew, Shenzhou 22 brought with it additional supplies for the space station, including additional fresh fruit and vegetables for the crew, medical supplies, and equipment the crew might be able to use to repair the damaged viewport on Shenzhou 20’s orbital module, which also remains docked at Tiangong.
If this can be done, then Shenzhou 20 is liable to be returned to Earth under automated control; if not the Chinese Manned Spaceflight Agency (CMSA) has indicated it will be abandoned in orbit to free the docking port it currently occupies ready for the arrival of Shenzhou 23 in April 2026.Presumably, if abandoned, and giving the risk of collision, Shenzhou 20 will be commanded to make a controlled re-entry into the upper atmosphere to largely burn-up with any surviving elements targeting Point Nemo in the South Pacific Ocean.
Russia’s Only Active Manned Spacecraft Launch Pad Damaged
On Thursday, November 27th, at just before 09:28 UTC, Soyuz MS-28 lifted-off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Aboard were the Expedition 73/74 crew bound for the International Space Station (ISS) comprising carrying cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov (mission commander) and Sergey Mikayev, and US astronaut Christopher Williams (NASA).
The flight proceeded smoothly, with the Soyuz vehicle achieving orbit and rendezvousing with the ISS a little over three hours after launch, docking with the nadir port on the Rassvet “mini-module” (formerly known as the docking Cargo Module) of the Russian section of the station.
However, during the launch from Site 31/6, damaged was caused to the launch facilities, with the Service Platform apparently collapsing into the pad’s flame trench (used to direct a rocket’s super-heated exhaust away from the vehicle and pad during lift-off).
A three-decked unit, the Service Platform sits under the actual launch pad and Soyuz the Soyuz rocket when in its upright position when on the pad, supported by three gantries on the pad itself (which open like jaws when the rocket lifts-off). Prior to launch, the service platform provides critical access to the lower portion of the booster as well as providing the mechanism required to support the rocket’s base. Its loss has temporarily rendered Site 31/6 inoperable.
What is particularly significant about this is the Site 31/6, first used in January 1961 and which has seen over 400 launches since then, is that currently, it is the only launch pad at Baikonur available for launching Soyuz and Progress. A second facility – Site 1, which was used as the launch pad for Yuri Gagarin’s historic flight, was decommissioned in 2020 due to lack of funds required for essential updates.
This means that, for the time being, Russia has no means to launch either Progress or Soyuz craft to the ISS. Following the incident, the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos issued a short statement confirming the damage, and stated that all the parts required to affect repairs are available, and repairs will be completed in the “near future”.
Russian spaceflight expert Anatoly Zak, who runs the Russian Space Website, and whom I’ve quoted in the past in these pages, notes that the platform could take up to 2 years to fully repair, but the pad itself could be brought back into use by Roscosmos “borrowing” the necessary hardware from the decommissioned Site 1, which is still standing.
Currently, the next planned launch from Site 31/6 is that of the uncrewed Progress MS-33 mission, due in late December 2025. At the time of writing, Roscosmos had provided no update on the status of that launch in light of the pad damage.
Boeing Starliner Update
NASA and Boeing have announced that the next flight of the latter’s troubled CST-100 Starliner crew vehicle will be an uncrewed flight to the ISS, and that overall, the number of operational crewed flights the vehicle will fly to the ISS will be reduced from 6 to 3 (for a total of four flights overall).
Starliner has been the subject of numerous articles in these pages, having suffered a series of embarrassing flaws and issues, the most recent being during the vehicle’s first crewed flight test, which saw issues with the vehicle’s thruster systems and resulted in the flight crew of Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams remaining on the ISS for a total for 286 days rather than their originally planned 7-14 days.
On Monday, November 24th, NASA announced the next launch of Starliner to the ISS – targeting a possible April 2026 lift-off – will be uncrewed and only carry supplies to the space station. Officially referred to as Starliner-1 and originally intended to be the first operational flight of the vehicle with a crew of 4, the flight is viewed by NASA as a further flight test to confirm Starliner’s suitability to commence crewed flights to the ISS.
In the same announcement, NASA indicated that in light of the delays to Starliner operations, they had agreed with Boeing that the number of planned flights using the vehicle will be reduced from the contracted 6 to 4 – including the Starliner-1 mission. This means Starliner will now only be used for three operational crewed flights to the ISS, the remaining two being held as “options” by NASA.
This does raise some questions around the entire CST-100 contract. In 2014, NASA agreed a fixed-price contract of US $4.2 billion for the development of Starliner and six operational crew flights (Starliner-1 through Starliner 6). In 2016, NASA amended the contract to pay Boeing an additional US $287.2 million per launch for the original Starliner-3 through Starliner-6 missions. As such, it is not clear if holding on to what would effectively be the “starliner-5 and “Starliner-6” flights as “options” is to avoid NASA and Boeing getting into an argument over refunds in the original contract.
Overall, the Starliner project is now estimated to be some US $2 billion over-budget. While much of the additional cost has been paid for by Boeing, adding to the company’s word on top of the 737 MAX debacle, it is still a major embarrassment to NASA. For its part, Boeing may still hope to salvage its reputation (and generate revenue) by using Starliner in conjunction with the Blue Origin / Sierra Space led Orbital Reef commercial space station, in which Starliner a designated the crew transfer vehicle (a role Sierra Space also hope to fulfil if it can successfully implement the crew-capable version of their Dream Chaser space vehicle).
Lawmakers Seek to Support Goddard
I’ve covered the disturbing situation at NASA’s Goddard Space Centre a few times in these pages recently (notably: Space Sunday: of budgets and proposed cuts and Space Sunday: more NASA budgets threats and Space Sunday: Goddard fears and comet updates), in which the NASA management appear to be facilitating a shut-down of facilities at the centre in accordance with the unapproved Trump administration budget for 2026, using the “20 year plan” for refurbishing and updating the centre as cover. It now appears that US lawmakers are asking questions as to what exactly is going on – and requesting NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) carry out a full audit to make a proper determination on whether the actions are harming individual projects based at Goddard – or NASA as whole.
The effort is being led by Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member of the House Science Committee, who has been joined by 15 other lawmakers, including Valerie Foushee Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. The letter, forwarded to NASA OIG on November 21st, 2025, followed a November 10th letter Lofgren to NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy and Goddard centre management stating the closures “must cease” until such time as NASA has submitted the changes for oversight by Congress and OIG.
The concerns from Congress stem from the fact that while initiated prior to the government shutdown, the closures and moves at Goddard were accelerated during the shutdown period, with many staff at NASA being ordered to pack their offices and data whilst technically on furlough and without any of the necessary paperwork required to allow them to work during a shutdown – called federal work exceptions – being submitted by Goddard Centre management.
In particular, it has emerged that pressure has been placed on two of NASA’s flagship science projects – the Dragonfly quadcopter mission to Saturn’s moon Titan (see: Space Sunday: A Dragonfly for a moon) and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (shortened to RST).
Both of these missions are based within Goddard’s Building 11, one of those earmarked for update. Prior to the acceleration of the emptying of facilities under the “20 year plan”, those involved in both projects were assured their work would not be affected, and both would be allowed to continue within Building 11 through until July 2026. However, on November 3rd, both were informed they had just 4 business days to pack-up their work and move out of the building. This was followed by reports that contract movers arrived following the deadline and started to remove highly sensitive equipment from the RST laboratories without proper Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) oversight to ensure proper safety protocols were followed, potentially risking equipment to damage. Whilst these moves should not be taken as a sign either mission is at risk of cancellation, the lawmakers note in their letter to NASA’s OIG:
The rushed move introduced completely unnecessary cost, schedule and risk factors for Roman and Dragonfly that could have been avoided or mitigated if the agency had acted with due caution, care and patience … If this is how the agency handles one of its most high-profile flagship missions, how many other missions are in imminent danger of being irrevocably lost?
A further cause of concern is revelations that equipment including 3D printers, test instruments – even entire laboratories – with a value potentially reaching into the millions of dollars, has been labelled to be either given away or simply disposed of.
In requesting the NASA OIG – which is charged with oversight of NASA’s operations, specifically to prevent and detect crime, fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, as well to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and economy throughout the space agency – the letter requests that the OIG assesses cost impacts of the changes at Goddard, determine how the moves were funded and identify any negative effects on Roman, Dragonfly and other missions based within Goddard’s facilities.
Responding to Lofgren’s initial concerns and the letter to the OIG, Goddard Acting Director Cynthia Simmons and the associate administrator for NASA’s science mission directorate, Nicola Fox have stated what is happening at Goddard is “merely” an implementation of the 20-year plan (which was designed to be a phased approach to renovating / replacing / closing many of the older facilities at the space centre over a 20-year period between 2017 and 2037), further claiming the current actions will reduce costs at Goddard by US $10 million per year and avoid US $64 million in deferred maintenance costs over the remaining years of the plan.
Rising operations and maintenance costs over a prolonged period have forced NASA to implement efforts to ensure the centre’s long-term viability through more efficiently utilizing available space and consolidating or reconstituting facilities. … All these efforts are in alignment with NASA Science Mission Directorate leadership and are designed to position Goddard for the future and protect ongoing missions, many of which are in pursuit of key decadal priorities and Congressional direction.
– Letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from Goddard Acting Director Cynthia Simmons and Nicola Fox, associate administrator for NASA’s science mission directorate
Whilst potentially accurate, the response from Simmons and Fox does not explain why the changes at Goddard are being carried out without the proper oversight from OSMA, and apparently without the proper transparency on the part of Goddard’s management or NASA Headquarters.
At the time of writing, George A Scott, NASA’s Acting Inspector General, has yet to respond to the lawmaker’s letter. Whilst OIGs frequently respond to Congressional requests for investigations by doing so, they are independent entities and so not actually obligated to do so. However, Scott is regarded as a capable and unbiased IG, having joined the office in June 2018 as NASA Deputy IG and following a 30 year career within the Government Accountability Office (GAO). He has previously been highly critical in how NASA manages itself and it funds, specifically with regards to contracts around major projects – such as the Space Launch System and its associated hardware – and in demanding better transparency by the space agency.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 