At the start of October 2025 I noted that I would be taking something of a break from SL and blogging in order to address a health issue which had been developing since earlier that year. At the time I did not go into specifics – nor do I intend to here. Rather, I wanted to let people know that circumstances were such that a break was required, and its exact length might well be indeterminate.
As it turned out, things initially appeared to go better than planned: the surgery proved to be less complicated than had originally described, and the immediate cause for concerned fully excised. As a result, my immediate recovery proved to be faster than anticipated, notably in terms of the time I was actually in hospital, such that by the latter third of October I was hoping I’d be returning to SL and blogging pretty much “full time” as it were.
Unfortunately, by mid-November it became apparent that despite these positives, the underlying cause of my problem had not been completely eliminated, and I would therefore require a more sustained period of treatment in order for it to hopefully be dealt with. As a result, my focus on SL and blogging has continued to be reduced and noticeably haphazard throughout the end of 2025 and into 2026 – and will most likely continue to be the case for at least the immediate future.
I mention all of this not to illicit thoughts and messages of sympathy and / or support, but because I’m aware that during the latter part of November and through December I received a lot of personal requests to attend a range of events (art, charity, music, etc.) and / or to ask for my help in promoting specific activities, the openings of public regions, etc., the majority of which went unanswered. As such I genuinely believe an apology for such a lack of response is warranted; the fact that my ramblings and this blog are viewed with regard by many is something I never wish to take for granted – it has and remains something for which I am ever grateful. Thus, I hope readers will take this post in the manner it which it is offered, and continue to bear with the unpredictable nature of my blogging until things again start to settle down for me.
In the meantime, my thanks to everyone for continuing to read this blog, and especially to those who have asked after my health through IMs, DMs, and the like; it really has helped lift my spirits.
The International Space Station as it appeared from a Crew Dragon vehicle in 2021. Credit: NASA / SpaceX
For the first time in the history of the International Space Station (ISS), NASA is curtailing an entire crew rotation in order to bring an astronaut with an undisclosed medical condition back to Earth in order for them to receive full and proper treatment.
Exactly what the medical issue is has not been disclosed, although NASA has confirmed it is not injury related and the move is being made out of an abundance of care rather then the crew member suffering any immediate threat to their life. Nor has the name of the affected astronaut been made public as yet. What is known is the affected individual is one of the four people making up the Crew 11 (NASA ISS Expedition 73/74) mission, who arrived aboard the ISS in August 2025, and who were due to return to Earth later in February 2026 following a hand-over to the upcoming Crew 12 mission.
Crew 11 comprises veteran NASA astronaut Michael “Mike” Fincke, who took over the role of ISS commander after arriving there in August 2025, NASA astronaut Zena Maria Cardman, making her first trip into space and who is serving as the station’s Flight Engineer, together with Kimiya Yui of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) on his second mission to the ISS, and Russian cosmonaut Oleg Platonov, on his first flight to orbit.
The Crew 11 / NASA Expedition 73/74 crew, clockwise from top rear: Roscosmos cosmonaut and Mission Specialist Oleg Platonov; JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut and Mission Specialist Kimiya Yui; NASA astronaut (and Crew 11 Commander) Zena Cardman; and NASA astronaut (and Crew 11 Pilot) Mike Fincke. Credit: NASA.
For Cardman this is the second time in succession her debut space flight his been the focus of changes; originally, she was to have flown as part of the Crew 9 mission in 2024, but was removed from that flight alongside astronaut Stephanie Wilson so their positions could be used to return Barry Wilmore and Sunita Wilson to Earth, following the issues with their Boeing Starliner which caused NASA to elect not to use that vehicle to bring them back to Earth.
News of the medical issue first broke on January 7th, when NASA announced the first EVA “spacewalk” of 2026 had been cancelled. This was to have been the first of 4 EVAs carried out by Crew 11 and the upcoming Crew 12 missions to install the last pair of iROSA solar arrays on the ISS as part of a years-long operation to boost the station’s power generation capabilities.
When originally launched, the ISS was furnished with eight pairs of massive 1-tonne solar arrays, each measuring 35 metres in length and 12 metres in width and originally capable of generating some 31 kW of electricity per pair. Called Solar Array Wings (SAWs) by NASA, these massive arrays have slowly become less and less efficient in generating electricity for the station, both as a result of their increasing age and because they are fairly fragile, and some have suffered certain amounts of damage over the decades.
A close-up view of damage done to the 4B SAW of the ISS in 2007, following a move and redeployment of the array during STS-120. Credit: NASA
Initially developed for NASA deep space missions, ROSA – Roll-Out Solar Arrays – are much more compact, much lighter and more robust than the SWs, as well as being far more efficient. The version used on the ISS – iROSA – for example, masses just 325 kg per array, with each array being half the size of the SAW units and able to generate up to 2/3rd the original SAW output. Since 2022, pairs of these iROSA units have been added to the ISS to supplement the SAW units, both stabilising and boosting the station’s power generation capabilities significantly.
As the medical issue was first announced at the time the EVA crew – Fincke and Cardman – would have been going through personal and equipment check-outs in advance of the actual EVA preparation and execution period planned for January 8th, initial speculation was that one of them had suffered some form of medical issue severe enough to curtail the planned activity. However, speculation as to who the affected crew member might be shifted to JAXA astronaut Kimiya Yui after a press briefing on January 8th revealed that he had requested a private consultation with medical experts on Earth around the same time as the EVA pre-prep work.
Whoever the individual affected is, the result is the same: as they require evacuation to Earth as a matter of safety and well-being, then all four members of Crew 11 must return early from the ISS, so that no-one ends up (dare I use the term beloved of the media?) “stranded” on the ISS “without a ride home”.
A 2021 enhanced image of the International Space Station showing how it would appear with six iROSA solar arrays deployed over three pairs of the the station’s existing primary arrays. At the time, it was only planned to deploy six of the 8 iROSA units to the ISS, the decision to add the final two being made in 2024. Credit: NASA
Currently, the plan is to return Crew 11 to Earth on the 14th / 15th January, with Crew dragon Endeavour departing the ISS at around 22:00 UTC on the 14th, with splashdown off the coast of California planned for around 08:40 UTC on the 15th. Following recovery, the entire crew will likely be flown to shore-based medical facilities.
As a result of this, the ISS is likely to undergo a period when it is under-staffed, with just three people aboard to run things: US astronaut Christopher Williams, on his first rotation at the ISS, together with cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov, who is on his second stint on the ISS and will take over as station commander as from January 12th, and Sergey Mikayev, another ISS rookie. Whilst this is not the first time a reduced crew has operated the station (the last was during the COVID pandemic), the early return of Crew 11 does raise some complications for the immediate future of ISS operations.
The first of these is that without the Crew 11 personnel, the first two EVAs required to prepare the external power systems etc, for the installation of the new iROSA units (which would have been carried out by Crew 12 following their arrival on the ISS in February). Nor can the members of Crew 12 or the other personnel on the ISS simply “slot into” the work Cardman and Fincke were to have performed: each EVA requires specialised training and techniques – and none of Crew 12 nor those remaining on the station have received said training. Thus, the iROSA deploy is liable to be subjected to some delay.
Nor is it clear as to when Crew 12 will be in a position to launch to the ISS and take some of the pressure off of Williams, Kud-Sverchkov and Mikayev. Usually, NASA prefers to launch an outgoing crew several days ahead of a departing crew, so as to allow a formal hand-over one to the next. With Crew 11 now set to return early,it is unlikely such a hand-over will be possible, and as a result, additional time will be required by Crew 12 to get fully up-to-speed with the overall status of the ISS and the revised work schedule for their rotation.
A major determining favour in this could be that of Artemis 2. Under the current launch schedule, the SLS rocket for that mission is set to roll-out to Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Centre on January 17th. Once there, the vehicle will undergo the last remaining tests required to clear it for a planned February 6th, mission lift-off.
Like Artemis 1 in 2022 (see here), Artemis 2 is due to make the drive from the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre to Launch Complex 39B mounted on its Mobile Launch Platform atop NASA’s huge Crawler Transporter. The multi-hour roll-out is currently targeting January 17th, 2026. Credit: NASA
Given this, and while ISS and Artemis missions are essentially separate entities with no real cross-over, NASA is likely to be very cautious about having any parallel launch preparations going on at the “neighbouring” Launch Complex 39A, where SpaceX operate all of their crewed launches, simply because both facilities have a degree of overlap in the use of launch support services – notably radar and tracking capabilities which could bring preparations for both launches into a degree of conflict, particularly if one or the other experiences delays whilst on the pad.
So unless SpaceX is able to demonstrate it is able to accelerate Crew 12 launch preparations to a point where an attempt can be made before the Artemis 2 roll-out and launch and without interfering with the final ground tests Artemis 2 must complete to meet its planned launch date, it is entirely possible Crew 12 will have to wait until around its originally target launch date of February 15th in order to get off the ground. And that’s assuming issues with Artemis 2 don’t push its launch back during a time when Crew 12 could otherwise have been on its pad and otherwise ready to go. As a result, the entire situation remains in something of a state of flux, and this story will continue to develop over the coming week.
Astronaut Health and Welfare
All of the above has forced a degree of focus on the questions of astronaut health and welfare, both on the ISS and in terms of missions to the Moon and Mars. The ISS has the overall advantage in this regard, as it is obviously the closest to Earth, and is the best equipped off-Earth facility when it comes to astronaut health – albeit one that is necessarily limited when it comes to more serious conditions or significant injuries. In particular, the ISS has extensive first-aid and medical facilities, including the likes of an ultrasound scanner, defibrillators and other specialised equipment, with many crew members receiving paramedic levels of medical training, backed by the ability to be able to call on Earthside expertise rapidly and with minimal delay in real-time communications and, in a worse-case scenario, have stricken crew returned to Earth in relatively short order.
While much of this can be replicated in missions to the Moon and Mars, there limitations. Getting back from the Moon is not exactly “immediate”, particularly with regards to the way Artemis using cislunar space rather than a direct Earth-Moon-Earth approach, and Mars is obviously even less so. Further, two-way communications are more limited.; there is always at least a 2.6 second delay in two-way Earth-Moon / cislunar space communications, for example. While this might not sound a lot, it could be the difference between saving and losing a life.
For Mars missions the situation is even worse, given delays are always at least 4 minutes for two-way communications, and can be as much as 24 minutes. Whilst the latter clearly means that practical real-time medical advice and support cannot realistically be offered during medical emergencies, it also means that crews on such mission face the additional psychological strain of being unable to communicate in real-time with family and loved ones, leaving all such contact to pre-recorded messages.
In terms of general health, there are a wide range of issues to be considered. The most obvious is that of physical fitness in micro-gravity conditions: as is only too well-known, long-term exposure to micro-gravity can result in a range of muscular and cardiovascular issues. While these can be addressed through discipline and exercise (around 2.5 hours a day), it’s still a major commitment to do so day in and day out for between 6 and 8 months journey time between Earth and Mars. But whilst such issues are the most referenced of those associated with living and working in microgravity, they they are not the only issues. There are many physiological and psychological matters we have yet to fully understand and address as best we can.
One example of this takes the form of the so-called 2015-16 One-Year Mission (although its duration was technically 11 months). In it, identical twins and astronauts Scott and Mark Kelly where the focus of an in-depth study of physical and psychological impacts of long duration space flight. This saw Scott Kelly spent the time on the ISS, whilst Mark remained on Earth as a control subject. Doing so allowed ten different teams of medical, health and psychology experts to monitor changes in Scott Kelly’s overall health, physiology and psychology using Mark as a baseline reference. Hus, they were able to analyse in detail a wide range of elements and their associated changes in Scott, including body mass changes / redistribution, eye and bone deformation, immune system responses, molecular and psychological changes, alterations in cognitive capabilities and more. The results were in many ways both surprising and unexpected.
Astronauts and identical twins Mark and Scott Kelly after the One-Year Mission (2015/16). Credit: NASA
Whilst Scott Kelly remained in overtly good physical health, he did undergo changes to his cognitive abilities, his DNA and immune system and changes to his body’s gene regulation processes. He also experienced changes to his retinas and eyesight, as well as to his carotids and gut microbiome. Whilst none of these changes were significantly debilitating (and did correct themselves over a period of time following his return to Earth), they were not entirely without outward impact on him, and pointed the way to the potential for serious psychological and other issues being a problem within especially isolated, long-duration missions where direct contact with others outside of the immediate crew is next to impossible in real time.
Nor is this all. As I recently related to friend and fellow space enthusiast Hugh Toussant, there are significant health implications linked to deep space radiation exposure which have only really come to light in the last 6 years and which require much more in the way of study. Some of these issues are, as an example, related to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs), the so-called “background radiation of the Big Bang”, and a subject which has been somewhat overlooked due to a preoccupant with addressing the impact of solar radiation effects such has coronal mass ejections (CMEs) which can admittedly be utterly devastating to an unprotected crew in very short order.
Whilst GCRs perhaps don’t have the immediate threat of something like a CME, they are also potentially much more of a risk over time and harder to address, simply because of the amount of energy they contain. In particular, a 2018/19 study demonstrated that GCR collisions with the human body can result in the reactivation of various strains of Herpes viruses which are otherwise generally dormant. These include the relative mild (but sill unpleasant varicella-zoster virus (VZV), which can cause issues such as glandular fever, all the way through to the highly contagious Epstein–Barr virus (EBV). The latter is particularly nasty, as it is very tightly linked to malignant diseases such as cancers (both lymphoproliferative – Burkitt lymphoma, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma – and non-lymphoid malignancies such as gastric cancer and nasopharyngeal carcinoma).
What was particularly unsettling about this study was that not only did it show that viruses like EBV could be re-activated by exposure to GCRs – but that it had happened to astronauts aboard the ISS, which operates within the relative shelter of Earth’s magnetic field and the protection it offers by diverting GCRs away towards the polar regions and thus out of the path of the ISS as it orbits the Earth. In particular a check back across the medical histories of 112 astronauts who flew on the ISS and shuttle missions revealed that between 61% and 96% of them had demonstrated shedding one or more re-activated Herpes viruses, including both EBV and VZV.
Exactly how much risk of such viral reactivation might occur on something like a mission to Mars – which largely takes place outside of any protection afforded by Earth’s magnetic field – is utterly unclear. However, given the potential for something like EBZ to give rise to a host of long-term malignant illnesses, it is clear that the apparent link between GCRs and the reactivation and shedding of such viruses needs to be more fully understood in order to enable proper mitigation techniques to be developed well before anyone starts mucking about with trying to send people to Mars. All of which is a long way of saying that while we have learned a lot about living and working in space, we very much have much more to understand.
Whithermere, January 2026 – click any image for full size
Landscaping creator and friend Cube Republic pointed me in the direction of Whithermere, a Homestead region designed by Dargason L’Ardente (rlhaydenfield) as both her home and a public space. Incorporating multiple settings within it, the region also forms a showcase for Dargason’s own landscaping skills.
Whithermere’s Dryad Sanctuary, and the home of Dargason L’Ardente, Dryad of Sedany Wood. Enjoy the myriad winding paths through dappled wood & glade, uphill & over stream. The sharp of eye may spot some of the lovely dryads hidden throughout the woods.
– Whithermere About Land description
Whithermere, January 2026
No Landing Point is set within the region, so the SLurl I’m giving here is quite arbitrary on my part. It will deliver you to a stone gazebo on the southern side of the region, sitting on a rocky shoulder of tall hills rising behind it, and overlooking the setting’s lake.
I selected the gazebo as it offers both a view across the setting to its northward extent, and the distinctive curl of land there almost forming an island in its own right rising from the waters on either side; and because it offers multiple routes of exploration.
Whithermere, January 2026
For example, step out of the gazebo and follow the grassy trail downhill to the left, and there is a choice of stepping down to a little wharf at the lake’s edge or following the trail along the step bank of the lake about 5 metres above the water, as it leads the way eastwards to where another path passes by way of a little bridge into Sedany Woods, passing by way of hither moors.
Alongside of the trail leading down to the lake, a paved path also sets out from the gazebo, rising and turning gently to also follow the curve of the lake below. A stone dragon – one of many sculptures in stone or wood to be found throughout the region – marks a branch of the path, where steps climb up to a cliff-edge walk leading to what I’ll call dragon’s hill (if reasons which are pretty self-explanatory!).
Whithermere, January 2026
Passing this, the paved footpath passes into the misty peace of Thither Wood, where visitors might dance around a fire to the woodland’s sounds and under the eyes of silent sentinels in a shaded clearing where plants glow with bioluminescence. Beyond the glade, the path continues on, turning towards the north and dropping down to become the route to the little bridge crossing to Sedany Woods, passing the grassy trail as it does so. Or, for those turning right as the path clears the trees of Thither Wood, it drops down to the region’s southern coast.
Head west from the gazebo, and another cliff-edge trail runs below the shoulder of “dragon’s hill”, passing steps cut into the rock to lead up to its promontory before dropping sharply down to a rock slab as it offers passage over a narrow channel to the sands at the edge of Mistwold, the island-like formation on the region’s north side.
Whithermere, January 2026
Here there are multiple paths of exploration up and around this rocky swirl as it exudes a sense of ancient history and mystery, crowned as it is by standing stones and tall pines. Goats graze here, watched over by eagles overhead whilst water tumbles by way of falls and channel to reach the lake.
Two paths from Mistwold point the way east to where Sedany Woods may once again be reached, and explorations can thus continue, completely circling the region.
Whithermere, January 2026
To call this region peaceful and mystical would e an understatement; the entire setting mix natural beauty with a sense of mystery and fable, that latter helped in part by the presence of dragons and the glowing plants and growths.
At the same time there is a the undeniable feel of magic and ancient (I will not say “pagan”, as that does not do justice to the depth of the feeling that might be evoked here) mystery. So much so, that in wandering the land and passing through the mist and trees, I would not have been surprised had I encountered the likes of Herne the Hunter. Indeed, and while the show itself dramatically relocated Herne’s place of residence, I did find myself listening to Clannad’s Legend, the soundtrack for the very excellent TV series Robin of Sherwood and its reimagining of the legend of Robin Hood.
Whithermere, January 2026
With dryads to be found throughout and plenty of opportunities for appreciating the beauty of the region and for photography, Whithermere is well worth visiting, and my thanks to Cube for recommending it to me.
January 2026 is here and with it, a visit to Cica Ghost’s Mysterious Isle to visit her latest installation there, Woodland. The setting comes with a quote oft attributed to the Master of the Imagination, Walt Disney:
If you can dream it, you can do it.
The reality of the world is that there is no evidence Disney ever uttered these words. Rather, the first public attribution of the quote to anything related to Disney appears to have come in 1983, seventeen years after his passing. They appeared in a script used in Horizons (1983-1994), an animatronic attraction at the EPCOT Centre (as it was then) at Walt Disney World, Florida.
Cica Ghost, January 2026 – Woodland
Exactly who coined the phrase – script writer Tom Fitzgerald or copywriter Sheralyn Silverstein – remains a topic of debate; it only became associated with Disney himself much later – in 2007, when it was used in a DVD series on the Disney phenomena and the marketing machine at Disney wasted no time in acquiring the idea the words were Walt’s – and started marketing them at every turn.
However, all this be as it may, the idea the words convey is totally applicable to Cica’s work. Month after month she presents us with installations grown from her dreams and made into living experiences for us to enjoy. Some of her works have carried subtle messages; some have offered new takes on various folk tales and fables; many have been twists of whimsy and lightness, speaking to Cica’s spirit of positivity; some have been perhaps pensive and forward-looking. All have have had deep roots in the dreams of a creative imagination – and such is the case here.
Cica Ghost, January 2026 – Woodland
The term “woodland” probably conjures images of trees heavy in leaf, grassy trials meandering between their trucks, sprinkled with bursts of flowers, light and shadow rippling and playing over them as a breeze moves the boughs overhead. A place where creatures, possibly stranger or exotic, and insects reside, all going about their business.
The flowers and the creatures and insects are all within Cica’s Woodland, and many of them are exotic – a chameleon-like lizard, stick insects and more. However, in a twist of imagination they all appear to be carved or grown from wood, and the majority of “trees” of this woodland are all houses and buildings, many of them rising slender and tall, like tree trunks with the unblinking eyes of windows cut into them, others offering a unique take on the windmill. All stand four-square on stout legs as if ready to set out across the surrounding hills.
Cica Ghost, January 2026 – WoodlandActual trees do also grow here, but the entire installation speaks to a place that is literally wood land. Even the brown and greying soil carries a woodgrain, the hills exhibiting a gridwork against which the grain laps, as if attempting to rise up and cover them.
All of this – creatures, houses, flowers, trees, is being watched over by a satisfied King (or Prince?) Frog. Is he responsible for this wonderland? If so, why? That’s a dream for your imagination to create, perhaps as you try the dances scattered across the setting and wander among the land’s friendly inhabitants.
Natthimmel: The Keepers of Twin Lights, St. Castoris, December 2025 – blog post
The following notes were taken from the Tuesday, January 6th, 2026 Simulator User Group (SUG) meeting. These notes form a summary of the items discussed, and are not intended to be a full transcript. They were taken from the video recording by Pantera, embedded at the end of this summary – my thanks to Pantera for providing it.
Meeting Overview
The Simulator User Group (also referred to by its older name of Server User Group) exists to provide an opportunity for discussion about simulator technology, bugs, and feature ideas is held every other Tuesday at 12:00 noon, SLT (holidays, etc., allowing), per the Second Life Public Calendar.
The “SUG Leviathan Hour” meetings are held on the Tuesdays which do not have a formal SUG meeting, and are chaired by Leviathan Linden. They are more brainstorming / general discussion sessions.
Meetings are held in text in-world, at this location.
Simulator Deployments
All simhosts appear to be undergoing restarts this week, with no deployments.
Game Control
Leviathan Linden had planned to try to port game_control back into the develop-Linux branch, but was beaten to the line bye Rye of the Alchemy viewer, show has submitted a Pull Request. Rye’s submission looks good, but has yet to be built.
This means that if the Linux build passes muster, it can join with the Windows and Mac builds and be passed into the main develop branch.
However, it has been a report of issues with Rye’s build on systems not using Pulseaudio, which tend to crash on start, so this will have to be investigated, although the overall impact on Linux users was the subject of debate.
SLua Work
No indication on when the SLua viewer will be promoted to release status – but that is a question more for viewer meetings.
Harold Linden noted his personal “to do” list for SLua is mostly around improving testing / allocation strategy in general, and noted that it is currently growing as LL find usability issues they think are worth pushing the viewer release back for, in order to get them included.
One of the things Harold would particularly like to see working is setting link primitive parameters “in a sane way to be less-bad by the time we go general availability for sure”.
He also noted he’d like a `require()` function that works correctly with the built-in editor as well.
Harold further noted that there is some rearchitecting that needs to go on behind the scenes, and the viewer definitely needs to be in a better state prior to promotion.
This led to a further conversation of possible SLua inclusions / updates, and on things like script scheduling – LSL vs. SLua (should be no difference), and script execution.
Harold further noted he is refactoring the script scheduler is he goes to try to improve things but in terms of scheduling and execution, and so the simulator isn’t spending “a lot of time figuring out that it has nothing to do”.
Multi-threading isn’t seen as an answer for this, because some scripts may be waiting on work being carried out by scripts currently running, and multi-threading could being this dependency.
SLua Resources
The nine beta test regions are centred on SLua Beta Void (mind the water!).
It is not yet available on the VScode marketplace.
Issues and PRs for code submissions can be made here, and the plugin downloaded.
VSCode plugin + documentation (Wolfgang Senizen – likely be discontinued and contributions shifted to support the official documentation).
In Brief
As well as working on Game Control (documentation here), Leviathan Linden has been trying to track a crash/corruption bug he accidentally introduced into the development simulator branch. The impact of this should be very limited – has only thus far shown up on the SLua test regions.
Leviathan also noted that there are been no progress on:
Experimenting with adjusting avatar bounding box size.
Enabling avatars to turn to face the direction of travel of travel when walking backwards (on the official viewer).
No progress on fixing the mesh mismatch issue.
Monty Linden warned that the Lab is coming up on the “annual simhost certification dance”, and will be part of the 2026.01 “Kiwi” release.
This should be invisible to everyone with one weird exception: The ‘TLS Web Client Authentication’ in the EKU is now *strongly* deprecated at all certification authorities. Monty noted that “No one should care unless they extended/ported the SL viewer’s fussy cert code that checks the server part of this”.
Henri Beauchamp (Cool VL Viewer) put forward a lengthy outline for solving the issues of avatars already in a region appearing as clouds to those newly arriving – which appears to be a largely server-side issue. He has developed a viewer-side workaround, and proposed a server-side messaging fix which would negate any need for viewer-side workarounds.
Both Leviathan and Monty Linden have an interest in trying to eliminate cloud avatars, and Leviathan indicated he would look at Henri’s proposed fix.
This extended into a discussion on solving the issues of missing attachments on visible avatars when people TP into a region, etc.
Date of Next Meetings
Leviathan Linden: Tuesday, January 13th, 2026.
Formal SUG meeting: Tuesday, January 20th, 2026.
† The header images included in these summaries are not intended to represent anything discussed at the meetings; they are simply here to avoid a repeated image of a rooftop of people every week. They are taken from my list of region visits, with a link to the post for those interested.
An infographic outlining the Artemis 2 mission, during to take place in the first quarter of 2026. Credit: CSA
2026 is set to get off to an impressive start for US-led ambitions for the Moon, with the first three months intended to see the launch and completion of two key missions in the Artemis programme.
In fact, if the principal players in both missions get their way, the missions could be completed before the end of February 2026 and between them signal the opening of the gates that lead directly to the return of US astronauts to the Moon in 2028. Those two missions are the flight of the Blue Origin Pathfinder Mission to the lunar surface, and the first crewed flight to the vicinity of the Moon since the end of the Apollo era: Artemis 2.
Blue Moon Pathfinder
As I’ve previously noted in this column, Blue Moon Pathfinder is intended to fly a prototype of the Blue Moon 1 cargo lander to the Moon’s South Polar Region to demonstrate key elements and capabilities vital to both the Blue Moon Mark 1 and its larger, crew-capable sibling, Blue Moon Mark 2.
These goals include: the firing / re-firing of the BE-7 engine intended for use in both versions of Blue Moon; full use of the planned cryogenic power and propulsion systems; demonstration of the core avionics and automated flight / landing capabilities common to both Blue Moon Mark 1 and Blue Moon Mark 2; evaluate the continuous downlink communications; and confirm the ability of Blue Moon landers to guide themselves to a targeted landing within 100 metres of a designated lunar touchdown point.
An artist’s rendering of the Blue Moon Mark 1 (foreground) and larger Blue Moon Mark 2 landers on the surface of the Moon. Credit: Blue Origin
Success with the mission could place Blue Origin and Blue Moon in a position where they might take the lead in the provisioning of a human landing system (HLS) to NASA in time for the Artemis 3 mission, currently aiming for a 2028 launch. A similar demonstration flight of Blue Moon Mark 2 is planned for 2027, involving the required Transporter “tug” vehicle needed to get Blue Moon Mark 2 to the Moon. If successful, this could potentially seal the deal for Blue Moon in this regard, given both they and SpaceX must undertake such a demonstration prior to Artemis 3 – and currently, SpaceX has yet to demonstrate the viability of any major component of the HLS design beyond the Super Heavy booster.
Of course, as others have found to their cost in recent years, making an automated landing on the Moon isn’t quite as easy as it may sound, so the above does come with a sizeable “if” hanging over it.
A comparison between the the Apollo Lunar Module, Blue Moon Mark1 and Blue Moon Mark 2. Note that the bulk of the latter comprises the massive Liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank (at the top, with the four large thermal protection / heat dissipation panels needed to help keep the propellant in a liquid form liquid), with the liquid oxygen (LOX) tanks between it and the crew module at the base of the vehicle. Credit: NASA / Blue Origin / David Leonard
The Blue Moon landers are between them intended to provide NASA with a flexible family of landing vehicles, with Blue Moon Mark 1 capable of delivering up to 3 tonnes of materiel to the Moon, and Blue Moon Mark 2 crews of up to four (although 2 will be the initial standard complement) or between 20 tonnes (lander to be re-used) or 30 tonnes (one-way mission) of cargo.
Currently, the Blue Moon Pathfinder flight is scheduled for Q1 2026 – and could potentially take place before the end of January.
Artemis 2: Four People Around the Moon and Back
Artemis 2, meanwhile is targeting a February 5th, 2026 launch. It will see the first crew-carrying Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) head to cislunar space with three Americans and a Canadian aboard in a 10-11 day mission intended to thoroughly test the vehicle’s crew systems, life support, etc. Despite all the negative (and in part unfair) criticism of the Orion system and its SLS launch vehicle, 21 of the 22 pre-launch milestones have now been met. This leaves only the roll-out of the completed SLS / Orion stack to the launch pad and the full booster propellant tanking testing order for the green light to be given to go ahead with a launch attempt.
An infographic shown by Brad McCain, VP and Programme Manager, Armentum Space Operations Division – a company providing critical support to NASA for SLS ground operations – during a December 15th Webinair on Artemis 2. Note both of the December 2025 items were achieved shortly after the webinair. Credit: Armentum / CDSE
No date has been publicly released for the roll-out, but given the issues experienced with Artemis 1, when helium purge leaks caused problems during the propellant load testing, it is likely that even with the high degree of confidence in the updates made to the propellant loading systems since Artemis 1, NASA will want as much time as possible to carry out the test ahead of the planned launch date.
Whilst Orion did fly to the Moon in 2022, the vehicle being used for Artemis 2 is very different to the one used in Artemis 1. This will be the first time Orion will fly all of the systems required to support a crew of 4 on missions of between 10 and 21 days in space (as is the initial – and possibly only, giving the calls to cancel Orion, despite its inherent flexibility as a crewed vehicle – requirements for the system). As such, Artemis 2 is intended to be a comprehensive test of all of the Orion systems, and particularly the ECLSS – Environmental Control and Life Support System; the vehicle’s Universal Waste Management System (UWMS – or “toilet”, to put it in simpler terms); the food preparation system and the overall crew living space for working, eating, resting and sleeping.
The Artemis 2 crew (l to r: Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen and NASA astronauts Christina Koch, Victor Glover, and Reid Wiseman) outside the Astronaut Crew Quarters inside the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building, Kennedy Space Centre, during an integrated ground systems test for the mission, September 20th, 2023. Credit: Kim Shiflett
These tests are part of the reason the mission is set to have a 10-11 day duration compared to the average of 3 days the Apollo missions took to reach, and then return from, the vicinity of the Moon: NASA want to carry out as comprehensive a series of tests as possible on Orion “real” conditions prior to committing to launching the 30-day Artemis 3 mission.
The mission will also be a critical test for Orion’s heat shield. During Artemis 1, the Orion heat shield suffered considerable damage during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, in what was called “char loss” – deep pitting in the heat shield material. Analysis of the damage reviewed the gouges to be the result of “spalling”. In short, in order to shed some of its enormous velocity prior to making a full re-entry into the atmosphere, Orion had been designed to make several “skips” into and out of the atmosphere, allowing it to lose speed without over-stressing the heat shield all at once.
Unfortunately, the method used to manufacture the original heat shields resulted in trace gases being left within the layers of ablative material. When repeatedly exposed to rapid heating as the Artemis 1 Orion vehicle skipped in and out of the upper atmosphere, these gases went through a rapid cycle of expansion, literally blowing out pieces of the heat shield, which were then further exacerbated as the vehicle make its actual re-entry, resulting in the severe char loss.
Two of the official NASA images showing the severe pitting and damage caused to the Orion MPCV heat shield following re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere at 36,000 km/h at the end of the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission, December 11th, 2022. They show the “char loss” pitting caused by “spalling” within the layers of heat shield material. Credit: NASA / NASA OIG
As a result of the Artemis 1 heat shield analysis, those now destined to be used on Artemis 3 onwards will be put through a different layering process to reduce the risk of residual gases becoming trapped in the material. However, because the heat shield for Artemis 2 was already cast, the decision was made to fly it with the mission, but to re-write the Orion’s atmospheric re-entry procedures and software to limit the number of atmospheric skips and the initial thermal stress placed on the heat shield, thus hopefully preventing the spalling.
The Orion vehicle to fly on Artemis 2 is the second fully-completed Orion system – that is, capsule plus European Service Module – and the first vehicle to ne formally named: Integrity. It is functionally identical to the vehicles that will fly on Artemis 3 onwards, with the exception that it is not equipped with the forward docking module the latter vehicles will require to mate with their HLS vehicles and / or the Gateway station.
The SLS booster to be used in the mission is the second in a series of five such boosters being built. Three of these – the vehicle used with Artemis 1 and those for Artemis 2 and 3 are of the initial Block 1 variant, using the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) as their upper stages. This is an evolution of the well-proven – but payload limited – Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS) developed in the 1990s, and powered by a single RL-10B motor.
Artemis 4 and 5 are intended to be Block 1B versions of SLS, using the purpose-built and more powerful Exploration Upper Stag (EUS), powered by 4 of the uprated RL-10C version of the same engine, enabling them to lift heavier payloads to orbit and the Moon. This means that both Artemis 4 and Artemis 5 will each lift both an Orion MPCV with a crew of 4 and a 10-tonne module intended for the Gateway station intended to be the lunar-orbiting waystation for crews heading to the Moon from Artemis 4 onwards.
A comparison between the SLS ICPS and future EUS. Credit: NASA
However, to return to Artemis 2: as noted, it will be the second SLS rocket to be launched, and like Artemis 1, will fly using the venerable and (up until SLS at least) reusable RS-25 motor developed by Rocketdyne for the US space shuttle vehicles. Sixteen of these engines survived the end of the shuttle programme, and Artemis 2 will see the use of both the most reliable of them ever built. and the only one to be built for the shuttle programme but never used.
Engine 2047 has flown more missions than any other RS-25 – 15 shuttle missions in which it gained a reputation for being the most reliable space shuttle main engine (SSME), consistently out-performing all other motors to come off the original production line. It proved so reliable that not only did it help lift 76 astronauts from the US and around the world into orbit, it was often specifically requested for complex mission such as those involved construction of the International Space Station and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. By contrast, engine 2062 will be making its first (and last) flight on Artemis 2, being the last of the original RS-25’s off the production line.
The four RS-25 engines to be used on Artemis 2, with 2047 highlighted. Credit: Helen Lewin, RS-25 Launch Support Lead, Aerojet Rocketdyne, via the December 15th, 2025 CDSE webinair
Such is the engineering behind these engines and their control systems that is worth spending a few paragraphs on exactly how they work at launch. While it may seem that all the motors on a multi-engine rocket fire at the same time, this is often not the case because of issues such as the sudden dynamic stress placed on the vehicle’s body and matter of balance, as well as the need to ensure the engines are running correctly.
For the SLS system, for example, engine preparation for launch starts when the propellant tanks are being filled, when some liquid hydrogen is allowed to flow through the engines and vent into the atmosphere in a process called chill down. This cools the critical parts of the engines – notably the high pressure turbopumps – to temperatures where they can handle the full flow of liquid hydrogen or liquid oxygen without suffering potentially damaging thermal shock.
Actual ignition starts at 6.5 seconds prior to lift-off, when the engines fire in sequence – 1, 4, 2, and 3 – a few milliseconds apart (for Artemis 2 engine 2047 is designated flight engine 1 and 2062 flight engine 2, and so these will fire first and second). Brief though the gap is, it is enough to ensure balance is maintained for the entire vehicle and the four engines can run up to power without creating any damaging harmonics between them.
A diagram of the RS-25 rocket engine used in both the space shuttle system and SLS. Credit: Helen Lewin, RS-25 Launch Support Lead, Aerojet Rocketdyne, via the December 15th, 2025 CDSE webinair
The low and high pressure turbopumps on all four engines then spool up to their operating rates – between 25,000 and 35,000 rpm in the case of the latter – to deliver propellants and oxidiser to the combustion chamber at a pressure of 3,000psi – that’s the equivalent of being some 4 km under the surface of the ocean. During the initial sequence, only sufficient liquid oxygen is delivered to the engines to ignite the flow of liquid hydrogen, causing the exhaust from the engines to burn red. This high pressure exhaust is then directed as thrust through the engine nozzles, meeting the air just beyond the ends of the engine bells.
The counter-pressure of the ambient air pressure is enough to start pushing some of the exhaust gases back up into the engine nozzles, causing what is called a separation layer, visible as a ring of pressure in the exhaust plume. This back pressure, coupled with the thrust of the engines, is enough to start flexing the engine exhaust nozzles, which in turn can cause the exhaust plume on each engine to be deflected by up to 30 centimetres.
Images of a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) ignition sequence showing the formation of the separation rings (arrowed left) and the cleaner-burning half-diamonds (right) as the engines come to full thrust. Credit: NASA
To counter this, the flight control computers initiate a cycle of adjustments throughout each engine, which take place every 20 milliseconds. These adjust the propellant flow rate, turbopump speeds, combustion chamber pressure and the movement of the engines via their gimbal systems in order to ensure all of the engines are firing smoothly and all in a unified direction and pressure, symbolised by a “half diamond” of blue-tinged exhaust (the colour indicating the flow of liquid oxygen) as the separation layer is broken, the thrust of the engines fully overcoming ambient air pressure resistance. All this occurs in less than four seconds, the flight computers able to shut down the engines if anything untoward is monitored. Then, as the countdown reaches zero, the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) ignite and the vehicle launches.
Once underway, Artemis 2 will carry its crew of 4 into Earth orbit for a 24-hour vehicle check-out phase, during which the orbit’s apogee and perigee are raised. Check-out involves the crew completing a series of tests on the vehicle and its systems, including piloting it, both before and after the ICPS is jettisoned. Completion of this initial check-out phase will conclude with the firing on the ESM’s motor to place Orion on a course for the Moon.
Orion includes the ability for the crew to stow their flight seats flat once in orbit in order to give themselves more room in the capsule. This includes allowing them to rig four shuttle-style sleeping bags in the cabin, each of them positioned in a way that also maximises space for the crew, whilst also positioning them close to the vehicle’s “glass” command and control systems. Credit: NASA
The flight to the Moon will be undertaken using what is called a free return trajectory. That is, a course that will allow the vehicle to loop around the Moon, using its gravity to swing itself back onto a trajectory for Earth without using the main engine to any significant degree. This is to ensure that if the ESM were to suffer a significant issue with its propulsion system, the crew can still be returned to Earth; only the vehicle’s reaction control system (RCS) thrusters will be required for mid-course corrections.
This also means that the mission will only make a single pass around the Moon, not enter orbit. It will pass over the Moon’s far side at a distance of some 10,300 kilometres and then head back to Earth. On approaching Earth, the Orion capsule will detach from the ESM, perform the revised re-entry flight to hopefully minimise any risk of spalling / char loss, prior to splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.
Orion MPCV 003 Integrity, the vehicle that will carry 4 astronauts on Artemis 2 at Kennedy Space Centre in 2025. The capsule is mated to its ESM, which is in turn mounted on the conical Spacecraft Adapter and awaiting the installation of the three Encapsulated Service Module Panels. Credit: NASA
I’ll have more on the actual mission and the flight itself as it takes place. In the meantime, my thanks to the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (CDSE) for hosting a special webinair on Artemis 2 in December 2025, from which portions of this article – particularly some of the graphics – were drawn.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 