Drawn from the Latin, simulacrum (“likeness, semblance”) entered the language of European art during the late 1500s, when was originally used to refer to a painting or statue directly representing someone or something (most notably a god or deity). However, by the 19th century, it had come to express an artistic endeavour – notably an image – formed without the substance or qualities of the original (e.g. to use a more modern example: a photocopy of a photograph of a painting).
It is a term which is particularly relevant today thanks to the rapid rise of generative AI tools, and the manner in which they can be used to literally churn out prompt-based images over and over without any genuine artistic input or understanding of the actual desired request or the inconsistencies, anachronisms and outright errors present within the final product.
Of course, those using such tools diligently will argue that they are merely a tool; when balanced with a critical eye and the use of other tools to refine, enhance and correct, they can be used to produce richly diverse pieces that do have originality within them. This is actually not an unfair summation, as far as it goes.
The problem¹ here is that the vast majority of users of such generative tools don’t exercise skill or talent. They prompt, wait, publish, often using minor variations of the same prompt ad nauseam (“make the woman’s hair colour blue”) to produce a stream of near identical images (as all too often seen on the likes of Deviant Art). There is little originality within such pieces when compared one to the next; worse, there is little in the way of critical review, and those aforementioned errors are allowed to persist. Worse still, all this repetition (complete with errors) is fed back into the data pool, further diluting it and increasing the regurgitation of vacuous elements to form what amounts to self-perpetuating simulacrums, devoid of originality and talent.
This constant cycle of regurgitation and repetition without originality is explored by Manoji Yachvili (onceagain), in her exhibition Simulacrum, currently on display at Nitroglobus Roof Gallery, curated by Dido Haas. It is also very much a personal expression of Manoji’s own increasing sense of artistic loss and frustration as she sees creative expression, skill and progress within art and artistic experimentation vanishing in a rising tide of banality.
Reality no longer exists, it has disappeared, crumbled by the media and modern technologies that propose images that do not refer to reality, that receive meaning only from other images and that are perpetually regenerated, thus remaining increasingly disconnected from what was originally real. Everything I see has an appearance and the power of appearance, without a faithful external image and therefore devoid of the original vitality.
To achieve this, Manoji presents a collection of original paintings that are richly expressive whilst clearly echoing the banality and emptiness of the kind all too easily spewed forth by generative AI. Through the use of simple, repeated elements – masks, faceless figures, and muted colours – she beautifully conveys the empty, expressionless redundancy so common within generative AI art.
Yes, these are all paintings utilising common themes elements – but each of them is completely original in form and presentation, allow it to stand on its own as a singular, unique piece carrying with it an ability to speak to each of us differently. Thus, these are pieces that reach beyond the artist, offering a richness of expression and meaning, standing not as the result of a collection of prompts, but as a prompt for our imaginations to take flight within them.
In doing so, Manoji establishes the genuine power of art through the hand, eye and talent originating from within the artist, making this a beautiful expressive collection, each piece standing in its own right as a genuine work of art.
Please note that within this article, I’m intentionally avoiding issues of copyright and ownership in relations to the “training” of generative AI tools, because while these are clearly of concern generally, they are not the focus of the exhibition being reviewed.
The following notes were taken from the Tuesday, May 6th, 2025 Simulator User Group (SUG) meeting. They form a summary of the items discussed, and are not intended to be a full transcript, and were taken from my chat log of the meeting. Pantera also recorded the meeting, and that recording is embedded at the end of this piece – my thanks to Pantera, as always, 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.
Meetings are open to anyone with a concern / interest in the above topics, and form one of a series of regular / semi-regular User Group meetings conducted by Linden Lab.
Dates and times of all current meetings can be found on the Second Life Public Calendar, and descriptions of meetings are defined on the SL wiki.
Simulator Deployments
On Tuesday, May 6th, the Main SLS channel was restarted without any update.
On Wednesday, May 7th:
BlueSteel and the snack channel running the Elderberry simulator update (see below) should be restarted.
All remaining RC channels should be updated with Elderberry.
Elderberry Update (2025.05)
A new option to llDerezObject – DEREZ_TO_INVENTORY, which returns the targeted object to inventory and saves its current state (e.g. has the same behaviour as Build → Object → Save Back to Object Contents.
llIsLinkGLTFMaterial – which can can determine if a face on a linked prim is PBR.
REZFLAG_DIE_ON_NO_REZZER – which will cause a rezzed prim to die if its rezzer is no longer present in the region.
llSetGLTFOverrides, rather than changes to llSetColor and llSetAlpha to work with PBR, as changing the latter was “starting to lead down some very scary paths WRT ‘What is the right thing to do'”.
Possibly a fix for llSetGroundTexture, which currently has the NE & SW values swapped. The question was asked in this was in the release, but the question wasn’t fully answered.
Upcoming Deployment – Fig Pudding (2025.06)
This is still being put together.
The update is unlikely to surface before June, as the simulator team has been focusing on some necessary internal work (e.g. ensuring various repositories build and deploy via Github actions correctly; updating where docker images are stored) which has drawn attention away from feature work on the simulators.
SL Viewer Updates
Default viewer: 2025.03 7.1.13.14343205944, issued April 9th and promoted April 15th.
New UI element for water exclusion surfaces: Build / Edit floater → Texture Tab → Hide Water checkbox.
The maximum amount of Reflection Probes can now be adjusted to better accommodate low VRAM scenarios.
Values will be set automatically depending on your chosen graphics quality. OR
Use Preferences → Graphics → Advanced Settings → Max. Reflection Probes to manually set.
An issue with being unable to see Sky Altitude values in the Region/Estate window has now been resolved.
Preferences → Graphics → Max. # of Non-Imposters has been renamed Max. # of Animated Avatars for clarity.
Bug and performance fixes and memory optimisations.
Chat Mentions (Early Support): Type @ then pick a name. To follow: audible alerts and highlight colour pickers.
My Outfits subfolders: now supports the use of subfolders.
Key updates:
Build Floater improvements: increase to scale boundaries; Physics Material Type now updates when selecting linked objects; Repeats per Meter value no longer incorrect for non-uniform sized objects
Hover height: the minimum/maximum is now +/- 3 meters.
Snapshot floater: L$ balances can be hidden independently of the rest of the UI.
Preference Search bar: general usability and readability improvements.
Refer to the release notes for full updates and fixes.
Second Life Project Lua Editor Alpha, version 7.1.12.14175675593, April 2nd.
A request for SLua events to be updated along the lines suggested in this canny request. Rider Linden indicated that a update will be made prior to SLua moving to wider beta testing, and will likely It will likely end up looking similar to the Canny proposal. However, there is no current time frame as to when the update will be made.
A Canny request was filed in January for a llGetRegionWorldMapTile feature. This was reportedly now sitting in the backlog of requests and work the server team are hoping to work through in time.
This saw a follow-up request at the meeting to be able to zoom down to the level of centring a parcel on the map. Rider indicated that it should be possible to give the full region map as a as a texture ID, allowing scripts to adjust the offset and scale of the texture to achieve desired results.
A discussion on regions idling (at 1 FPS(?)) when not in use (e.g. when there are no avatars in the region, no child agents registered with in and no HTTP IN/OUT functions running); the ability for llGetEnv to obtain a region’s status.
Regions are not completely shut-down when “empty”. as most require scripts to keep running.
This broadened into a discussion on how low a region takes to start-up. The most accurate might be “no long in the scheme of things, but variable”.
In response to a question on progress with combat 2.1 features, Rider stated:
Combat 2.1 is pushed back. I’ve got no eta when that will come back up. I’d like to get it moving, I think it introduces some important additions that have impacts outside of just Combat, but there are lots of things that need doing and I can only type so fast.
The latter half of the meeting was taken up with discussions of texture loading, the impact of alpha layering, non-optimised contents and similar, the majority of which was more viewer-centric. They arose from a complaint that Fantasy Faire is overloaded with “4K textures” (which aren’t actually a thing in SL) causing viewer performance issues.
† 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.
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025 – click any image for full sizeFor May – the start of which has become somewhat indelibly linked with science fiction over the last several decades – Saskia Rieko and Konrad (kaiju.kohime) bring us their own epic sci-fi tale; one with its roots in a galaxy-spanning civilisation called the Ythari.
Born long before most others, the Ythari were driven by their insatiable intellects, boundless ambition and an overbearing pride and arrogance which perhaps led to their downfall.
The Ythari once ruled over a vast and enigmatic galaxy known as Veilspire — a name derived from its most haunting feature: a towering, luminous rift that cuts across its heart, like a tear in the fabric of space-time. This anomaly called the Axiom Rift, existing in the very centre of the galaxy, is believed to be the result of their final and most ambitious experiment — perhaps even the very thing that led to their disappearance.
– from the records of Dr. Khiraan Valis
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025
Konrad and Saskia have always produced richly engaging settings within Second Life, often drawing on inspiration from locations and event on or from our physical world. Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, however is utterly different in theme and tone – although its depth easily equals that of any of the previous designs the couple have presented. Whilst it might not draw from events and locations we might all directly research, instead being born entirely of the imagination, it nevertheless comes with a rich back-story; one capable of forming the basis of a novel from the likes or Asimov, Heinlein or James S. A. Corey (aka Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck) for an entire novel.
Mixing a thirst for knowledge and a hunger for understanding with towering abilities and intelligence, the story of the Ythari is one of a galaxy-spanning empire built not on war or dominion, but on the foundations of science, intellect, and an ability to conceive everything within their galaxy from the quantum level to the macro, without any apparent discontinuities of scale.
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025
Veilspire was no ordinary galaxy. Unlike the spiral and elliptical galaxies known to modern astronomers, its structure bore evidence of deliberate engineering. Star systems arranged in mathematically perfect formations, gravity-defying megastructures orbiting black holes with impossible stability, and entire regions where time seemed to flow at inconsistent rates, with the centre of the creation, The Axiom Rift — all hints that the Ythari did not merely live in their galaxy, they designed it with the development of The Equation of Being.
– from the records of Dr. Khiraan Valis
It is also a tale of galactic overreach and a hubris which – perhaps inevitably – could only result in one of two outcomes. Outcomes which themselves might perhaps be indistinguishable from one another, thanks to the passage of aeons and when looked upon through the eyes of a far-future humanoid race stumbling across the crumbling, but still magnificent relics the Ythari left in their wake.
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025
As they neared the completion of their greatest project — an attempt to rewrite the fundamental laws of reality — they miscalculated. Or perhaps they succeeded too well. One by one, their great cities, planets, even the whole solar systems fell silent … The Ythari simply… ceased. Their towering spires, their quantum archives left behind as if abandoned in an instant. No bodies. No signs of struggle. Only silence and the mysterious humming of the abandoned Axiom Rift.
– from the records of Dr. Khiraan Valis
To best appreciate the setting, make sure you have your viewer set the Use Shared Environment, and you have media set to play (at least initially in the case of the latter). The arrival point will provide you with the back-story in the form of a records / log entry by one Dr. Khiraan Valis, an archaeologist dedicated to uncovering the mysteries of the Ythari.
The latter is played back over the computer screens and consoles at the landing Point, and really is worth listening to. For those who prefer, the same information can be obtained by clicking the traditional Natthimmel greeting (and setting name) on the ground of the Landing Point, and accepting the offered folder. This contains a notecard with the information given within the narration. For those who do listen to the audio, I would strongly suggest pausing media playback (click the movie camera icon / button towards the top right corner of the viewer’s window), as the narrative track can otherwise overwhelm the ambient sounds within the setting.
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025
Stormy, eerie and caught under a roiling, almost angry Expanse in which the eye of a galactic core balefully stares from one horizon, this is an environment for which words – genuinely – are not enough. Beyond the consoles and systems at the Landing Point, as left by Dr. Valis and her team, this is an assuredly alien setting. Within it, a water-like sea slips into a low-lying landscape. This initially appears to be dotted with strange tree-like groves. However, closer inspection reveals them to be more rock-like than organic – or perhaps they are the fossilised remains of something; and while there is the odd tree to be found, organics as we might recognise them are few and far between.
Even the paths laid across the water have a geometry about them that feels alien. None lead directly from A to B; instead they seem to be some kind of mathematical expression, as much a part of the gigantic towers and other structures within and floating over these strange lands.
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025
Broken, decaying, and ominous even when countered but the roiling heavens beyond them, these structures are riven by massive discharges of energy, themselves accompanied by rolling booms which fall upon the ears as the funerial beat of drums. Whether these discharges are is being generated by whatever remain powers keep at least some of these artefacts raised in defiance of gravity, or whether the explosions of light and energy are the angry response of the atmosphere to their hulking presence, is yours to determine.
Not all the structures are airborne or massive; floating on the waters are polygonal forms, cables and relays on them looking as if they might have once drawn power from the waters – or discharged it into the waver over which they sit. They sit around the remnants of the great towers as if part of their ancient function. Steps climb the interiors of the towers, while outside of one is an indication that the Ythari might not have vanished completely.
Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars, May 2025
The very few who dare to explore their ruins tell of anomalies time fractures where the past leaks through, machines that seem to remember their creators, and strange, whispering voices that seem to come from nowhere. The Ythari may be gone, but something of them lingers. Watching. Waiting.
Beautiful, visually impressive, rich in narrative and creativity, edged in mystery and a hint of dread, Ythari – Echoes of the Silent Stars is a magnificent journey of the imagination.
Logos representative only and should not be seen as an endorsement / preference / recommendation
Updates from the week through to Sunday, May 4th, 2025
This summary is generally published every Monday, and is a list of SL viewer / client releases (official and TPV) made during the previous week. When reading it, please note:
It is based on my Current Viewer Releases Page, a list of all Second Life viewers and clients that are in popular use (and of which I am aware), and which are recognised as adhering to the TPV Policy.
This page includes comprehensive links to download pages, blog notes, release notes, etc., as well as links to any / all reviews of specific viewers / clients made within this blog.
By its nature, this summary presented here will always be in arrears, please refer to the Current Viewer Release Page for more up-to-date information.
Outside of the Official viewer, and as a rule, alpha / beta / nightly or release candidate viewer builds are not included; although on occasions, exceptions might be made.
Official LL Viewers
Default viewer: 2025.03 7.1.13.14343205944, issued April 9th and promoted April 15th.
New UI element for water exclusion surfaces: Build / Edit floater → Texture Tab → Hide Water checkbox.
The maximum amount of Reflection Probes can now be adjusted to better accommodate low VRAM scenarios.
Values will be set automatically depending on your chosen graphics quality. OR
Use Preferences → Graphics → Advanced Settings → Max. Reflection Probes to manually set.
An issue with being unable to see Sky Altitude values in the Region/Estate window has now been resolved.
Preferences → Graphics → Max. # of Non-Imposters has been renamed Max. # of Animated Avatars for clarity.
Bug and performance fixes and memory optimisations.
Chat Mentions (Early Support): Type @ then pick a name. To follow: audible alerts and highlight colour pickers.
My Outfits subfolders: now supports the use of subfolders.
Key updates:
Build Floater improvements: increase to scale boundaries; Physics Material Type now updates when selecting linked objects; Repeats per Meter value no longer incorrect for non-uniform sized objects
Hover height: the minimum/maximum is now +/- 3 meters.
Snapshot floater: L$ balances can be hidden independently of the rest of the UI.
Preference Search bar: general usability and readability improvements.
Refer to the release notes for full updates and fixes.
Second Life Project Lua Editor Alpha, version 7.1.12.14175675593, April 2nd.
Bryn Oh’s Imogen and the Pigeons first appeared in Second Life over a decade ago. Like all of Bryn’s art, it was deeply immersive, experimental, and offered a depth of narrative that might be seen as both challenging to navigate with its layered themes, and visually engaging. Also, as with most of Bryn’s work, it sat within her broader narrative universe, started with her Rabbicorn story, with its most direct link to that universe being via The Singularity of Kumiko, which was both a physical prequel to Imogen and the Pigeons and as sequel – so to speak – to Imogen’s life, focusing as it did on the story of Imogen’s daughter.
However, whilst I have attempted to follow all of Bryn’s creativity within these pages, Imogen and the Pigeons is a work that escaped my attention back in 2013, so I was pleased to be able to pay a visit to it following its extensive update and return to Second Life, where it re-opened on April 25th, 2025.
Bryn Oh: Imogen and the Pigeons, May 2025
As noted, this is a story sitting within Bryn’s broader narrative universe. But this does not mean you necessarily need to have specific knowledge of that universe; the central themes of Imogen are accessible to anyone visiting, and the layering of ideas and themes allows the visitor the opportunity to peel them open howsoever they wish and however deeply they wish, be in during a single visit or over multiple visits or as a result of witnessing and allowing what they’ve encountered to whisper quietly to them during and after a visit.
That said, there are core themes throughout Bryn’s work, and these are very present within Imogen, as Bryn explains:
My artistic focus is in the way modern society is affected by technology, ranging between human/machine and machine/machine relationships. Often we consider technology to open channels for people to interact and engage socially, however, the opposite can occur where people become isolated within their own personal bubble, separate and witnessing the world from a distance almost as a product with brittle popularity. My work expresses a yearning for meaningful connections within the new technological realm that often contains human remoteness. I build virtual reality environments that convey the juxtapositions between human emotion and machine sentience. I combine poetry with a melancholy narrative that explores the themes of connection and belonging.
– Bryn Oh
Bryn Oh: Imogen and the Pigeons, May 2025
In terms of presentation, Imogen is richly immersive and takes advantage of some of SL’s most recent updates, such as the use of reflection probes and dynamic mirrors. Core to the installation is Bryn’s own Second Life Experience, which should be accepted on arrival if not a part of your active Experiences. Given all of this, the installation should really be viewed using an up-to-date viewers with, if your system can manage it, at least mirrors being enabled, together with Use Shared Environment set and have local sounds enabled.
It’s also particularly pertinent to remember that Imogen is designed to be both immersive and interactive – a lot of the initial parts of the installation rely on you finding your way forward, and some of the time this may not seem obvious. As such, do be sure to mouse-over things you may find – particularly things which look like they may be buttons or switches. In this latter regard, I’m not just talking about the in-world “audio” buttons you can press to hear recitals of the poems that form the written narrative for the story; there are also those that will open doors and portals.
Bryn Oh: Imogen and the Pigeons, May 2025
Be prepared to put some effort into getting around – routes are not direct (although some are volume-triggered teleports, making transitions between chapters in the story fairly straightforward). When you initially find your way outside, for example, the journey does not end at the water’s edge, but you’ll have to have to exercise care and have a keen eye in order to make your way upwards. However, like Bryn, I’m not going to point you towards where you should go or what you should do.
I have said in the past that I think of my artwork here in virtual worlds almost as paintings you can enter and explore. The beauty of a painting, the immersion of cinema and then meshed in with a new type of open ended freedom of movement combined with interaction. There are many new and interesting techniques to experiment with inside the virtual art form. The one which I brought up at the beginning, that ties into my new build Imogen and the pigeons, is creating immersion within the artistic environment by creating scenarios which challenge the viewer. I generally don’t put out text or arrows to tell the viewer where to go or what to do. I feel this can break the immersion so I let the viewer discover on their own.
– Bryn Oh
Bryn Oh: Imogen and the Pigeons, May 2025
So, what is the story behind Imogen and the Pigeons? As Bryn notes above, it is very much about our relationship with technology. Set in an age where an individual’s memories can be recorded, and then potentially edited, spliced, etc., it explores questions of existence, the human condition, the juxtaposition of connection with others and isolation from them as so often exists when it comes to our increasing reliance on technology for our interactions. Also within it we might find questions concerning our own identity and how we project ourselves in the eyes of others – how willing are we to amend our own histories, intentionally alter our memories and actions when verbalising them, in order to appear more acceptable, more desirable, in their eyes?
Within this, there are many subtexts and other avenues of question those exploring Imogen might find or be prompted to explore. In this I would urge you to observe everything you see at least twice; from the titles of books waiting to be found to drawings on walls to those scattered across a floor in as if torn from a sketchbook and thrown into the air, pretty much everything you encounter within the chapters and scenes, rooms and spaces, throughout Imogen will have something to say.
Bryn Oh: Imogen and the Pigeons, May 2025
Even were the route straight-forward, this layering of ideas and subtext is such that Imogen and the Pigeons is not the easiest or nor the most direct narrative to comprehend as one moves through it. Patience and an open, inquisitive mind are essential to both finding your way through the many scenes and rooms and in coming to an understanding as to what might be being whispered to you by your subconscious, as you find your way from the opening scene and back to it.
And if all this sound cryptic, it is only because I do not want to spoil things for you or for Bryn. There is a depth and richness to Imogen that perhaps reaches beyond the likes of Hand and other environments Bryn has created; an almost perfect balance of narrative, adventure, questioning, reflection, warning and mystery (I’m still boggling about the poem of the writer, and whether her name and her appearance are an intentional reference to a producer of immersive adventures with SL, and if so, what it might potentially mean). Thus, this is an installation which really should be experienced and cogitated upon directly and not offered through a watery translation as I might otherwise give.
NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle (MPCV):now earmarked for “phasing out” in the White House budget request for NASA. Credit NASA
In my previous piece on the NASA upcoming budget, as being put forward by the US 47th executive administration, I focused on how the proposal could impact NASA’s science capabilities. At the time, the entire budget request had yet to be published, and my article was based on what had been made public by way of passback documents circulating in Washington DC.
At that time, it was anticipated that the White House would push for around a 20% cut in NASA’s annual budget, the majority of which would target NASA’s Earth and Space Science operations. However, on Friday, May 2nd, 2025, the “skinny” version of the White House budget request was published, revealing that the administration is seeking an overall 24.8% cut in NASA’s spending compared to the agency’s existing budget. If enacted, it will be the biggest single-year cut in NASA’s entire history. And whilst around two-thirds of the proposed cuts do land squarely on NASA space / Earth science and legacy programmes, they do touch the agency’s human spaceflight ambitions as well.
First and foremost, the request calls for the immediate cancellation of the Lunar Gateway station (aka “Gateway”). This actually makes sense, simply because since its inception, Gateway has itself never made sense.
Starting as a series of studies called the Deep Space Gateway (DSG) in the mid-2010s, it became an official NASA project under – ironically – the first Trump Administration, when it became the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G). It was presented at both a means to enable a return to the surface of the Moon and a gateway to the human exploration of the solar system. However, intended to occupy a Polar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon, travelling up to 70,000 km from the lunar surface whilst never coming closer than 3,000 km, it has been more a limitation than an enhancement to lunar operations.
An artist’s impression of the first two modules of Gateway – the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) passing by the Moon. Credit: NASA
While this orbit would allow for uninterrupted communications between the station and Earth, it also introduced multiple complexities of operation into any return to the Moon. As a result, multiple ancillary reasons for Gateway’s existence were cooked up: Earth sciences, heliophysics, fundamental space biology research, etc., all of which could be achieved more directly and cost-effectively through other means.
Thus, over the last 6 years Gateway has been consistently downsized and de-prioritised, constantly criticised by experts from within and outside NASA, and even seen as something of a complicated boondoggle in terms of design by those actually engaged in its design. Add to this the fact it offers little or nothing to lunar operations that could not be achieved from within a modest lunar orbit (200-300 km). Given all this, cancelling the project – even if it means pissing off international and commercial partners – is a sensible move.
As I noted in a recent Space Sunday report, the arrival of the Trump administration coincided with calls for the outright cancellation of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) on the ground of outright expense. but as I mentioned in that piece, any such complete cancellation of SLS would have left Artemis high and dry, and ideas of simply launching Orion utilising other launchers were as close to be nonsensical as to make no difference.
In a follow-up piece to that article, I suggested that a preferable approach would be to go ahead with Artemis with SLS until such time as the latter could be replaced. This is more-or-less what the Trump budget proposes, albeit it on a far tighter time frame; looking to “phase out” both SLS and Orion completely following the first lunar landing of the Artemis programme (Artemis 3), in favour of a “commercial” solution.
The Orion MPCV mounted atop its ESM and mating adaptor to be used in the Artemis 2 cislunar space mission, was officially handed over to NASA on May 1st, 2025. Credit: Lockheed Martin
Given that Artemis 3 is unlikely to fly before around 2028/9 (simply because the SpaceX lunar lander is unlikely to be ready before then), this does present an – albeit tight – window of opportunity; albeit one biased in favour of one commercial operator – SpaceX.
That company’s Crew Dragon vehicle has proven itself a remarkably versatile vehicle, capable of not only ferrying crews to the International Space Station, but also of carrying out space missions of 4-5 days duration in its own right. While its life-support and general facilities would require upgrade, as (likely) would the heat shield (which would have to protect the vehicle when re-entering Earth’s atmosphere at around 40,000 km/h compared to the 28,000 km/h experienced during a return from low-Earth orbit (LEO). But such upgrades are necessarily outside the realm of possibility.
A critical part of these upgrades would lie with the service module (aka “trunk”) supplying power and consumables (e.g. water and air) to Crew Dragon. This would have to be considerable beefier in terms of propellants and consumables it can carry, and also its propulsion. However, this is not something insurmountable. SpaceX has been working on a design for a “Dragon XL”, a large-capacity Cargo Dragon supported by an enhanced “trunk” which would have been used to support operations at Gateway. In theory, there’s a potential for this “trunk” to be enhanced into a suitable service module for Crew Dragon, allowing it to make trips to lunar orbit and back.
This does involve a number of challenges – one of them being how to launch such a combination. Currently, the heaviest payload SpaceX can send to the Moon is between 20-24 tonnes, using the Falcon Heavy (I am intentionally ignoring Starship here, as that is a long way from being anywhere near an operational, human-capable launch system). However, it’s unlikely a combined Crew Dragon + enhanced service module is going to fall within this limit (for example, the Apollo Command and Service modules massed 28.8 tonnes and Orion and its lightweight ESM mass 26.5 tonnes). Falcon Heavy is also not human-rated, so even if it could lob a Crew Dragon / enhanced service module combination to the Moon, it would need to undergo some degree of modification in order to gain a human flight rating, adding further complications.
Dragon XL: an uncrewed cargo vehicle NASA has requested from SpaceX to deliver cargo to to the Lunar Gateway station might help form a part of a replacement (also using Crew Dragon) for Orion to help deliver crews to lunar orbit. Credit: SpaceX
That said, even this is not a blocker: allowing for the risk of damage to the Crew Dragon’s heat shield, it might be possible to launch a crew to LEO atop a Falcon 9, allowing then to rendezvous and mate with an uprated service module and Falcon upper stage placed in to LEO by a Falcon Heavy. This would eliminate the need to human-rate Falcon Heavy whilst enabling the latter to launch a more capable combination of upper stage (to boost the combined Crew Dragon and service module onwards to the Moon) and service module to await the arrival of the Crew Dragon.
As noted, there are technical caveats involved in this approach. It also requires the provisioning of funding for said vehicle development – something not within the pages of this budget proposal; and it would make NASA exceptionally dependent on SpaceX for the success of Artemis.
Beyond changes NASA’s lunar ambitions, the 2026 budget request is seeking a reduction in International Space Station (ISS) spending of around half a billion dollars a year on 2024 spending, in “preparation” for the station’s 2030 decommissioning. The most immediate impact of the cut will be a reduction in overall ISS crew sizes, together with a reduction in the number of annual resupply missions – something that could impact the likes of Sierra Space with their contract for ISS resupply flights due to commence in 2026. In addition, the budget request seeks to “refocus” (aka “restrict”) research and space science activities in the ISS to those directly related to “efforts critical to the moon and Mars exploration programmes”. However, what this precisely means is not made clear.
Whilst promoting human mission to Mars, the budget proposal offers little if anything concrete, other than the cancellation of the automated Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission, stating the return of any samples can be deferred until such time as humans reach Mars and can collect such samples directly.
Even in a massively simplified proposal from Rocket Lab (when compared to NASA’s multi-vehicle internationally-split idea), the Mars Sample Return Mission has been identified for complete cancellation. Credit: Rocket Lab
In this, MSR is the only science mission named for cancellation in the budget request. Given the manner in which NASA has consistently fumbled around with the mission over that last half-decade, its cancellation doesn’t come as a surprise. The non-mention of other programmes also doesn’t mean the concerns I raised in my previous Space Sunday have gone away; as noted, the budget request confirms the desire to make very deep cuts into NASA’s ability to carry out science and research across all disciplines.
Two additional programmes potentially impacted in this regard are the LandSat Earth imagining programme – which the Trump administration wants to see downscaled, and NASA’s research into what the administration calls “legacy space programmes” – such as their research into nuclear propulsion systems. The latter is again ironic given nuclear systems are potentially the most effective means of propulsion for Mars missions, and the budget request flag-waves the idea of humans to Mars.
As with Trump’s first term in office, the White House is seeking to eliminate all of NASA’s involvement in STEM and education (STEM being disgustingly referenced as being “woke” in the budget request). This includes cancelling the Established Programme to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). This is again ironic, given that during his initial Senate confirmation hearings, prospective NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman (who is now almost certain to be confirmed, following a 19-9 vote by the Senate Commerce Committee) referred to EPSCoR as an “essential” NASA educational programme because “it helps connect students and researchers from underserved regions and institutions to the opportunities that NASA provides.”
In my last update, I noted that there is a reported desire among some within the Administration to see at least one NASA centre – The Goddard Space Flight Centre – to be closed. While the budget request does not directly earmark any NASA centres for closure, it does call for NASA to “streamline the workforce, IT services, NASA Centre operations, facility maintenance, and construction and environmental compliance activities”. As such, downsizing / closures remains a threat, and Goddard remains the centre with direct responsibility for many aspects of NASA’s science missions.
All of the above said, this is – at this stage at least – only a budget request. It remains to be seen as to how those in both side of Capitol Hill respond, and whether the White House will actually listen if / when objections are raised. Given the attitude of many within (notably, but not exclusively) the Republican Party towards science, climate change, the environment, DEI (which the budget also targets), green initiatives, etc., I have my doubts as to whether strong objections to the cuts to NASA’s science programmes will be raised.
Certainly there has been some push-back from within the bipartisan U.S. Planetary Science Caucus, but thus far the loudest voices of protest have come from outside US government circles, such as the globally-respected American Astronomical society and The Planetary Society – two organisations well-versed in America’s leadership in the fields of space and science – among others.
If enacted, the 56% cut to the National Science Foundation, the 47% cut to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, and the 14% cut to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science would result in an historic decline of American investment in basic scientific research. These cuts would damage a broad range of research areas that will not be supported by the private sector. The negative consequences would be exacerbated because many research efforts can require years to decades to mature and reach fruition. Without robust and sustained federal funding, the United States will lose at least a generation of talent to other countries that are increasing their investments in facilities and workforce development. This will derail not only cutting-edge scientific advances, but also the training of the nation’s future STEM workforce. These proposed cuts will result in the loss of American leadership in science.
– from a statement issued by the American Astronomical Society, May 2nd, 2025
As it is, NASA is already tightening its belt: on April 29th, 2025, it postponed the release of the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for the next Small Explorer (SMEX) mission.
Established in 1988 as a continuation of and enhancement to the long-running Explorer Programme, SMEX focuses on well-defined and relatively inexpensive space science missions in the disciplines of astrophysics and space physics which cost less than US $170 million per mission (excluding launch). Currently, the last SMEX mission was selected in 2021, but its launch has been delayed until 2027. As such, the 2025 AO would have earmarked a launch window between 2027 and 2031 for the selected mission. However, given the potential for up to two-thirds of the agency’s astrophysics budget to be cut, NASA has indicated it would not now issue the SMEX AO “until at least 2026”.
It is anticipated that more upcoming requests for science mission proposals will be placed “on hold” whilst this budget request is debated.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 