Space Sunday: updates on launches and Goddard

Shenzhou 22 lifts-off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre, northwest China, 12:11 Beijing time, November 25th, 2025. Credit: CMSA

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.

A camera aboard Shenzhou 22 shows it with solar panels deployed in orbit, November 25th, 2025. Credit CMSA

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.

Shenzhou 22 (on the right) at Tiangong. Credit: CMSA

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.

Soyuz MS-28 (foreground), docked against the Rassvet module of the ISS, November 27th, 2025. Credit: Roscosmos

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.

A computer-generated model of the Soyuz Service Platform (aka maintenance cabin) used at Site 31/6 at Baikonur. Credit: unknown

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”.

Site 31/6 at Baikonur following the launch of Soyuz MS-28 on November 27th, 2025, with the wreckage of the collapsed service platform circled. Credit: Roscomos

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).

A Boeing CST-100 Starliner with its forward docking hatch open, approaches the International Space Station in preparation for docking during the uncrewed Orbital Flight Test 2 in 2022. Credit: NASA

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.

Breakdown of Boeing CST-100 Starliner. A: Crew capsule (reusable), comprising: 1. hinged nosecone protecting the docking mechanism. 2: parachute compartment cover. 3: Crew access hatch 4: MR-104J RCS thrusters (25 in total). 5: 6 auto-inflating airbags for landing. 6: Heat shield (ejected during landing). 7: NASA Docking System 8: Parachute compartments (x3) 9: Window (x3) B: Service module (expended) 10: power and consumables umbilical connecting to the capsule. 11: Radiators (x4) 12: “Doghouse” thruster unit (x4 and location of the vehicle’s thruster issues). 13: Propellant tanks. 14: Doghouse roll control RCS thruster. 15: 4 x RS-88 engines for launch escape capability in the event of an abort. 16: Solar panels. Credit: NASA

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.

A completed Boeing CST-100 Starliner vehicle within a clean room at Boeing’s facilities at Kennedy Space Centre, Florida. Credit: NASA

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).

The Dragonfly quadcopter is due to launch to Saturn’s moon Titan in 2028, but has faced upset at Goddard due to staff being forced to relocate. Credit: JHU/APL

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?
Building 11 at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC). Credit: NASA

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.

Space Sunday: space rescue and big boosters

The three “stranded” Shenzhou-20 tiakonauts aboard the Shenzhou-21 vehicle, about to depart the Tiangong space station. Credit: CMSA

“Stranded” runs the risk of becoming one of the most over-wrought terms used by the by western media in regards to on-orbit human space operations. In recent times it has been used on two occasions, both involving US astronauts, when calling on it was for more about creating sensational headlines than reporting the overall situation.

The first came in 2022/23 when Soyuz MS-22, docked at the ISS, was struck by a small meteor in December 22, severely damaging its lift support cooling systems. Following reviews of the impact, it was agreed that the crew of three – Sergey Prokopyev, Dmitry Petelin, and NASA astronaut Francisco Rubio – would remain on the ISS until the next Soyuz vehicle could be launched uncrewed in February 2023 and then serve as the means to return the three to Earth.

However, this decision did not leave the three men “stranded” in orbit. After extensive testing and computer modelling, Roscosmos determined that should an emergency evacuation of the station be required, Soyuz MS-22 could make a return to Earth carrying Prokopyev and Petelin and without broiling them to death. Arrangements were therefore made for Rubio to b3e able to return to Earth alongside the NASA / SpaceX Crew 5 astronauts should the need arise. Ultimately, these contingencies were not required; the uncrewed Soyuz MS-23 arrived at the ISS ahead of the MS-22 vehicle departing, resolving the issue. MS-22 subsequently made an automated return to Earth during which temperatures within the descent module did not exceed the upper safety limits for flying a 2-man crew home.

Video of the Soyuz MS-22 coolant leak, December 14th 2022. Credit: NASA

In 2024 much of the news media positively relished the idea that two US astronauts – Barry Wilmore and Sunita Williams – were “stranded” in space when the Boeing CST-100 Starliner they were testing had issues with its thruster systems. Whilst Boeing were confident the issues did not put the astronauts at risk (and indeed, the vehicle made a successful automated return to Earth in September 2024), the decision was made to keep Wilmore and Williams on the station until the next crewed mission to the station – NASA / SpaceX Crew 9 – could be launched, but only with two crew aboard so as to leave the remaining seats free for Williams and Wilmore.

The Crew 9 vehicle eventually launched in September 2024, after the Starliner vehicle had departed the ISS to make room for it. To ensure Wilmore and Williams were not “stranded” in an event of an emergency during the period between the departure of Starliner and the arrival of Crew 9, contingencies were put in place to enable them to return to Earth with the crew of NASA / SpaceX Crew 8. But again, none of this was required. Wilmore and Williams continued to work alongside their colleagues on the ISS, fulfilling the roles vacated by the two Crew 9 astronauts left on the ground, and came home on that vehicle in March 2025, never once having been truly “stranded”.

The “stranded” Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams working aboard the ISS during their longer-than-originally-planned stay in 2024/25. Credit: NASA

In the past couple of weeks “stranded” has again been rolled-out by the media, this time in reference to the Chinese Tiangong space station – and this time it does have an underlying cause for concern.

On October 31st, 2025, Shenzhou 21 arrived at the Chinese space station with three crew aboard – mission commander Zhang Lu, Wu Fei and Zhang Hongzhang. They were due to carry out several days of formal hand-over with their comrades Chen Dong, Chen Zhongrui and Wang Jie, who has been aboard the station since April 2025, prior to the latter three boarding their Shenzhou 20 spacecraft and making a return to Earth.

However, at the start of November, 2025, tiny fragments of debris struck Shenzhou 20, and the homecoming crew’s departure would be delayed until the damage to their vehicle had been fully accessed. This assessment revealed the integrity of a viewport on the vehicle’s orbital module had been compromised, and as a result Shenzhou 20 was deemed unsuitable for returning the crew to Earth. Instead, they came home on Shenzhou 21 on November 21st, thus leaving the crew of that mission, Zhang, Wu and Zhang without a means to evacuate the station in an emergency.

And this is where their situation differs to those of the Boeing Starliner crew and Soyuz MS-22: there are no contingencies available except for CMSA to launch an automated Shenzhou vehicle to Tiangong at the earliest opportunity. Fortunately, CMSA work their manned launch vehicles in pairs so that while launches are 6-months apart, at the time of any given launch the vehicle intended to follow it is in a state where it can be readied for launch in a relatively short time should it be required. In this case, CMSA appear to be targeting November 25th, 2025 as a launch date for Shenzhou 22 – although this has not been officially confirmed.

The Shenzhou 21 crew of Zhang Lu (centre), Zhang Hongzhang (left) and  Wu Fe, now awaiting the automated launch and arrival of Shenzhou 22 to become their ride home at the end of the 6-month stay aboard Tiangong. Credit: CMSA 

This still leaves the Shenzhou 21 crew in an uncomfortable position, and highlights a growing concern about human space operations in low Earth orbit: it’s getting increasingly crowded with junk and debris, and collisions and impacts are growing increasingly likely.     As it is, both the ISS and Tiangong have to make at least 2 significant orbital adjustments a year to avoid debris (with the ISS having to do so five times in 2023), whilst a 2024 European Space Agency study highlighted the fact that there are more than 6,000 items of man-made debris on low Earth orbit of 10 cm or greater in size spanning altitudes of between 375-600 km, marking many of them as potential threats to both the ISS and Tiangong, which orbit between (370-460 km).

Nor does it end there. A study carried out in 2023 revealed that low Earth orbit is seeing debris of 6cm and larger increase at a rate of 2,400 object per year.

A 2023 axonometric view of Earth showing the space debris situation in different kinds of orbits around Earth. Note how the low Earth orbit is seeing an annual net increase in debris estimated at 2,400 items a year (includes objects down to around 6 cm in size). Credit: Pablo Carlos Budassi

As such, the Shenzhou 21 crew situation has given rise to renewed calls for some form of “space rescue” system to be implemented. The problem is – how? There is a degree of commonality in space vehicle design – docking mechanisms for connecting modules to one another and for connecting spacecraft to said modules or, potentially, to one another, are now built to a common standard: the International Docking System Standard (IDSS). However, it’s not entirely clear how closely nations like China adhere to the IDSS. Further, while IDSS may allow rendezvous and docking between craft, it doesn’t specify standards for things like consumable transfers between craft, such as might be required in an emergency (e.g. air, water, propellants).

In addition, the majority of crewed vehicles currently operating aren’t really designed to go pottering around from point-to-point offering assistance. A Soyuz or Crew Dragon from the ISS can’t simply pootle over to Tiangong and offer assistance were its required. The two stations are in very different orbits relative to one another, and the nature of orbital mechanics mean that trying to get from one to the other would likely exhaust a vehicle’s propellant reserves.

This means that in order to be effective, any rescue system need to be both specialised and available on a launch-as-needed basis. But again, this is easier said than done. Who should develop and operate such a system? Who should pay for it? Where should it be based; on the ground, with an entire supporting launch infrastructure with all the complexities that entails, or in orbit – with all the very different complexities that entails? Should the system be crewed, and if so, by whom and on what basis (civilian? military?) or fully automated?

Currently, there are no easy answers – but with commercial activities in Earth orbit about to increase tenfold as companies look towards flying their own orbital research and tourist facilities and their own crew vehicles to link them with Earth, then it is becoming increasingly imperative serious thought is given to try to find answers – and act on them.

Never Tell Me the Odds Comes Home, Blue Origin Reveal Plans

The first stage booster used in Blue Origin’s highly-successful NG-2 mission (see Space Sunday: New Glenn “welds” it on second flight!) has returned to Blue Origin’s facilities at Cape Canaveral Space Force base on November 20th. It will now undergo a examination and refurbishment in readiness for its next flight, which could be as soon as January or February 2026.

The 57.5 metre tall New Glenn first stage Never Tell Me the Odds sits proudly on the deck of the Landing Vessel Jacklyn after the highly successful NG-2 mission of November 13th, 2025. Credit: Blue Origin

The Booster, called Never Tell Me the Odds in a reference to the difficulties involved in bringing a 57.5 metre tall, 7 metre diameter booster back to Earth from the edge of space and landing it smoothly on a vessel 600 km out in the Atlantic – appeared to be in remarkably good condition following its flight as it was delivered to the company’s launch preparation facilities close to Launch Complex 36, from where it had launched on November 13th.

The reason for looking so pristine (particularly in reference to the sooty state of recovered Falcon 9 boosters) is really down to the “clean burn” of the BE-4’s liquid oxygen / liquid methane propellants; it should not be taken as any indication the stage is fit to fly at this point in time. That determination will only come following a complete and careful examination. However, simply seeing it back at CSSF and LC-36 is undeniably a positive further step for Blue Origin.

At around the same time as Never Tell Me the Odds returned to base, Blue Origin revealed its future plans for New Glenn.

New Tell Me the Odds being wheeled into the Blue Origin hanger at Launch Complex 36, Canaveral Space Force Station on November 20th. In the hanger it will undergo extensive inspection and refurbishment in readiness for its next flight. Credit: Blue Origin

In the near-term, the company plan to start operating the vehicle with uprated engines, with the seven BE-4 first stage motors able to generate 4.5 million pound of thrust at lift-off (up from 3.9 million) and the two BE-3U motors of the upper stage increasing their combined thrust from 320,000 pounds to 400,000. Engines of both types capable of handling this increased output have already been tested on the ground, so it might not be too long before they start to be used on New Glenn launches.

In the medium-term, the company also hopes to make the payload fairings recoverable / reusable. Doing so could help support increased flight rates and lower launch costs. However, as SpaceX discovered (albeit by having to go for a complex recovery system of parafoils and high-speed chase boats which looked spectacular but proved impractical), making payload fairings recoverable and actually recovering them in a cost-effective manner might not be that easy.

Most intriguingly and long-term, Blue Origin announced an entirely new variant of New Glenn – the “9×4” – a reference to the fact that it will use 9 BE-4 engines in the first stage (rather than seven) and four in the upper stage (rather than two), whilst maintaining the same overall design and diameter across the two stages (although both will be longer to account for the increased propellant requirements).

This new behemoth is intended to deliver up to 70 tonnes to low Earth orbit, 14 tonnes to geosynchronous orbit and 20 tonnes to the Moon, all with the first stage reusable. In addition the diameter of the payload fairings atop the second stage will be increased from 7 metres to 8.4 metres to handle particularly large payloads (such as space station modules).

A composite image released by Blue Origin CEO David Limp showing the comparative sizes of the current New Glenn (left, mounted against its launch support arm), Saturn V (centre) and the proposed New Glenn 9×4. Credit: Blue Origin

It is because of the latter capability – 20 tonnes to the Moon compared to New Glenn’s 7 tonnes – that some are already suggesting the “9×4” should be given a name of its own: the “New Armstrong”, after Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the Moon. Blue Origin has not responded to these calls as yet.

Exactly how commercially viable such a vehicle would be within the commercial sector is hard to say. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy has already demonstrated that launchers with lifting capabilities of 50 tonnes or more really don’t play much of a role in the commercial launch business, instead primarily relying on government contracts. One potential area of use for the New Glenn “9×4” could be in lifting elements of the in-development Orbital Reef commercial space station, a project being led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space – but such work is liable to be niche, rather than a mainstay of revenue generation.

The GEO capability perhaps has more appeal – a 20-tonne capacity could in theory allow the “9×4” to rideshare communications satellites to orbit, reducing the launch costs to customers, with the company’s Blue Ring orbital “tug” positioning them. However, it is in the government sector and lunar operations theatre that the new behemoth would potentially have a role. A 14-20 payload capacity would be very attractive for military launches and to efforts such as Artemis and in launching deep-space science missions into the solar system.

The increased payload capability for New Glenn 9×4, together with the size increase for payloads its new fairings would enable, could significantly benefit the development of Orbital Reef, the space station facility being developed by Blue Origin in partnership with Sierra Space and the support of Boeing and others. Credit: Blue Origin / Sierra Space

Again, Blue Origin has offered no time frame on when the “9×4” will enter service; however, the degree of commonality it has with New Glenn likely means its development cycle could be relatively brief. In reporting on it, some pundits have suggested the “9×4” could have a maiden launch in 2027, although this does seem a tad ambitious, particularly given Blue Origin’s “soft and gentle” approach. As such, 2030 would seem a more reasonable time frame for “9×4” to start flights.

Some have already suggested that “9×4” could be a viable replacement for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket in carrying crews to the Moon. However, and as I’ve noted in these pages, replacing SLS is easier said than done. Whilst New Glenn has been designed from the ground-up to be capable of making crewed launches (something SpaceX’s Starship most definitely is not in its current configuration), there is currently no crewed vehicle it is actually capable of launching. Orion, for example, the only crewed vehicle the US has that is specifically designed to handle carrying crews from Earth to Cislunar space, is currently completely incompatible with New Glenn.

An artist’s rendering of New Glenn 9×4 launching. Credit: Blue Origin

But that said, it is not entirely inconceivable that, given a suitable amount of time (and remember, SLS systems for Artemis 2 through 5 are already well in hand in terms of construction), and with Artemis 5 realistically unlikely to launch before 2031, there is potential for Lockheed Martin and Blue Origin to put their heads together to see if they could develop a means by which Orion could be launched by New Glenn “9×4” to launch Orion. This would still likely require some form on on-orbit propellant resupply – but that would likely only be a single additional launch, so it’s not entirely out of the question (given SpaceX plan to launch around 8-12 Starships for every vehicle it sends to the Moon).

That said, New Glenn being used in crewed lunar missions is not something I’d personally put my money on right now; it just seems so much better suited to rapid cargo delivery to the Moon, again particularly when compared to Starship – even if the latter could in theory carry 5 times more per vehicle to the Moon.

Space Sunday: New Glenn “welds” it on second flight!

Lift-off! With a massive plume of steam and water from the deluge system forced away from the launch pad by the 7 BE-4 engines, Blue Origin’s New Glenn mission 2  featuring the reusable first stage Never Tell Me the Odds, rises from Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, November 13th, 2025. Credit: Blue Origin

Thursday, November 13th, 2025 witnessed the second launch of New Glenn, the heavy lift launch vehicle from Blue Origin, marking the system as 2 for 2 in terms of successful launches, with this one having the added bonus of achieving an at-sea recovery for the rocket’s first stage, in the process demonstrating some of New Glenn’s unique capabilities.

In all, the mission had four goals:

  • Launch NASA’s much-delayed ESCAPADE (ESCApe and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers) mission on its seemingly indirect (but with good reason) way to Mars.
  • Carry out a demonstration test of a new commercial communications system developed by private company Viasat.
  • Act as a Second National Security Space Launch demonstration, clearing New Glenn to fly military payloads to orbit.
  • Successfully recover the first stage of the rocket – which is designed to be re-used over 25 flights – with an at-sea landing aboard a self-propelled ocean-going landing platform.

Of these four goals, the recovery of the first stage booster was regarded more of an added bonus, were it to occur, rather than an overall criteria of mission success. This was reflected in the name given to that first stage: Never Tell Me the Odds (which sci-fi fans may recognise as a quote from the Star Wars franchise – bonus points if you can name the film, scene and speaker! 😀 ).

The first attempt to launch the rocket – officially designated GS1-SN002 with informal reference of NG-2 – was actually made on Sunday, November 9th, 2025. However, this was scrubbed shortly before launch due to poor weather along the planned ascent path for the vehicle. A second attempt was to have been made on November 12th, but this was called off at NASA’s request because – and slightly ironically, given the aim of the ESCAPADE mission – space weather (a recent solar outburst) posing a potential risk to the electronics on the two ESCAPADE satellites during what would have been their critical power-up period had the launch gone ahead.

Thus, lift-off finally occurred at 20:45 UTC on November 13th, with the 98-metre tall rocket rising into a clear sky from Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida in what was to be a flawless flight throughout. As with New Glenn’s maiden flight, the vehicle appeared to rise somewhat ponderously into the sky, particularly when compared to the likes of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.

The reason for this is simple: New Glenn is a very big vehicle, closer in size to NASA’s Saturn V than Falcon 9, and carrying over double the propellant load of the latter. So, whilst they are individually far more powerful than Falcon 9’s nine Merlin engines, the seven BE-4 engines powering New Glenn off the pad have a lot more inertia to overcome, hence the “slow” rise. Falcon Heavy, meanwhile has the advantage in that while it can carry a heavier payload (with a caveat I’ll come back to), it also has an additional 18 Merlin engines to get it going.

New Glenn approaching one minute into its flight on November 13th, 2025. Credit: Blue Origin
Anyway, once clear of the tower, the launch proceeded rapidly for the initial 14 minutes of powered ascent, with the highlights being:

  • At 3 minutes 9 seconds after launch, having powered the rocket to an altitude of 77 kilometres, the first stage motors shut down and a few second later the upper stage separated, pushed clear of the first stage by a series of spring-loaded rods, allowing it to ignite its two BE-3U motors without damaging the first stage.
  • Immediately following this, two significant steps in the flight occurred completely autonomously.
    • In the first, the flight control systems on the rocket’s upper stage recognised that the first part of the vehicles ascent had been optimised for first stage recovery, rather than achieving orbit. They therefore commanded a “pitch up” manoeuvre, significantly increasing the upper stage’s angle of ascent, allowing it to reach its intended initial orbit.
    • In the second, the first stage used its reaction control systems (RCS) to enter a “coast” phase, essentially a controlled free-fall back towards Earth, re-orienting itself ready to perform a propulsive breaking manoeuvre.
  • After 50 seconds of continued ascent following separation, the upper stage of the rocket successfully jettisoned its payload fairings, exposing the two small ESCAPADE satellites, to space.
Circled in red: the payload fairing protecting the ESCAPADE and Viasat payload are jettisoned by New Glenn’s upper stage. Credit: Blue Origin / NASA
  • Dropping in free-fall for some four minutes, the rocket’s first stage re-lit three of its BE-4 motors at an altitude of around 66 km, slowing its re-entry into the denser atmosphere.
  • Following the re-entry burn, the motors shut down and the stage used the aerodynamic “strafes” close to its engine exhausts together with the upper guidance fins, to take over “flying” itself down towards the waiting landing vessel.
  • At 8 minutes 33 seconds after launch, the three centre Be-4 motors re-lit again at an altitude of just under 2 km, slowing the stage and bringing it to an upright position in preparation for landing.

It was at this point that New Glenn demonstrated the first of its unique characteristics: it brought itself to a near-hover abeam of the landing vessel prior to deploying its six landing legs. It then gently crabbed sideways until it was over the landing ship before gently lowering itself to a perfect touch-down right in the middle of the landing ring painted on the deck.

Captured from on the the range safety vessels near the Landing Platform Vessel Jacklyn, 600 km off the Florida coast, these three shot show Never Tell Me the Odds apparently overshooting the landing ship, then coming to a hover and translating back over the vessel’s deck to touch-down safely. Credit: Blue Origin

Immediately on touch-down, special pyrotechnic “disks” under the booster’s landing legs fired, effectively welding the stage to the deck of the ship to eliminate any risk of the booster toppling over during the return to port.

Called “energetic welding”, this capability has been developed by Blue Origin specifically for New Glenn landings at sea, but is seen as having potential uses elsewhere when “instant bonding” of this kind is required. Once the booster has been returned to port, the bonding disks can be separated from both ship and booster with no damage to the latter and a minor need to replace some of the deck plating on the former.

Two images captured from a video camera on the Landing Platform Vessel Jacklyn showing two of the “energetic welding” disks under the feet of the New Glenn booster firing to fix the rocket to the deck of the ship. Credit: Blue Origin

New Glenn’s ability to hover is also worth addressing. Some have claimed that this capability detracts from New Glenn as a launch vehicle as it reduces the amount of payload it might otherwise lift to orbit. Such claims are misplaced: not only is the amount of propellant used during a hover quite minimal overall, it clearly allows New Glenn to make much more of a controlled landing than can be achieved by the likes of SpaceX Falcon 9 stages, thus increasingly the booster’ survivability. Also, as experience is gained with further stage recoveries, there is no reason to suppose the ability to hover / translate / land cannot be further refined to use less propellant than may have been the case here.

And this point brings me back to comparative payload capabilities. It is oft pointed out that whilst big, New Glenn is a “less capable” launch vehicle than SpaceX Falcon Heavy on the grounds the latter is able to lift 63 tonnes to low Earth orbit (LEO) and 27.6 tonne to Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO), compared to New Glenn “only” being able to manage 45 and 13.6 tonnes respectively.

However, these comparisons miss out an important point: Falcon Heavy can only achieve its numbers when used as a fully expendable launch system, whereas New Glenn’s capabilities are based on the first stage always being recovered. If the same criteria is applied to Falcon Heavy and all three core stages are recovered, its capacity to LEO is reduced to 50 tonnes – just 5 more than New Glenn, whilst its ability to launch to the more lucrative (in terms of launch fees) GTO comes down to 8 tonnes; 5.6 tonnes less than New Glenn (if only the outer two boosters on a Falcon Heavy are recovered, then it can lift some 16 tonnes to GTO; 2.4 tonnes more than New Glenn). Given that reusability is supposedly the name of the game for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, the two launch systems are actually very closely matched.

But to return to the NG-2 flight. While the first stage of the rocket made its way down to a successful landing, the upper stage continued to run its two motors for a further ten minutes before they shut down as the vehicle approached the western coast of the African continent. Still gaining altitude and approaching initial orbital velocity, the upper stage of the rocket “coasted” for 12 minutes as it passed over Africa before the BE-3U motors ignited once again, and the vehicle swung itself onto a trajectory for the Sun-Earth lagrange L2 position, the two ESCAPADE satellites separating from it some 33 minutes after launch.

ESCAPADE: the Long Way to Mars

That New Glenn launched the ESCAPADE mission to the Sun-Earth L2 position rather than on its way to Mars has also been a source for some confusion in various circles. In particular, a common question has been why, if New Glenn is so powerful, could it not lob what is a comparatively small payload – the two ESCAPADE satellites having a combined mass of just over one tonne – directly to Mars.

The answer to this is relatively simple – because that’s what NASA wanted. However, it is also a little more nuanced when explaining why this was the case.

The twin ESCAPADE spacecraft, Blue and Gold (with the mission at that time referred to as EscaPADE) in a clean room at Rocket Lab, the company responsible for building them on behalf of NASA, prior to being shipped to Kennedy Space Centre. Credit: Rocket Lab

Interplanetary mission are generally limited in terms of when they can be optimally launched in order to be at their most efficient in terms of required propellant mass and capability. In the case of missions to Mars, for example, the most efficient launch opportunities for missions occur once every 24-26 months. However, waiting for such launch windows to roll around might not always be for the best; there are times when it might be preferable to launch a mission head of its best transfer time and simply “park” it somewhere to wait until the time is right to send it on its way.

During its development, ESCAPADE – as a low-cost mission intended to be developed and flown for less than US $55 million – had originally been intended to piggyback a ride to Mars aboard NASA’s much bigger Psyche mission. This mission would be heading to asteroid 16 Psyche, but in order to reach that destination, it would have to perform a fly-by gravity assist around Mars. Thus, it became the ideal vehicle on which ESCAPADE could hitch a ride, separating from the Psyche spacecraft as the latter approached Mars in May 2026.

However, Psyche’s  launch was pushed back several times, such that by the time it eventually launched in October 2023, the additional delta-vee it required in order to still make its required fly-by of Mars was so great, there was no way the two ESCAPADE satellites could carry enough propellants to slow themselves into orbit around Mars after Psyche dropped them off. Thus, the mission was removed Psyche’s launch manifest.

Originally, ESCAPADE would have hitched a ride to Mars on NASA’s Psyche mission spacecraft, seen in this artist’s rendering approaching it intended target for study, the asteroid 16 Psyche. However, delays in launching the Psyche mission meant ESCAPADE had to be removed from the mission. Credit: NASA

Instead, NASA sought an alternative means to get the mission to Mars, eventually tapping Blue Origin, who said they could launch ESCAPADE on the maiden flight of their New Glenn vehicle at a cost of US $20 million to NASA, and do so during the 2024 Mars launch window opportunity.

Unfortunately, that maiden flight of New Glenn was in turn pushed back outside of the Mars 2024 launch window (eventually taking place in January 2025), leaving it unable to both launch ESCAPADE towards Mars and achieve its other mission objective of remaining in a medium-Earth orbit to demonstrate a prototype Blue Ring orbital vehicle. And so NASA opted to remove ESCAPADE from that launch and instead opt to test out the theory of using parking orbits for interplanetary missions, rather than leaving them on the ground where they might eventually face cancellation – as was the case with Janus, another mission which was originally to have flown with the Psyche mission, but was also pulled from that launch due to its repeated delays.

Using ESCAPADE to test the theory of parking orbits also made sense because of the mission’s function: studying the Martian magnetosphere and its interaction with the Solar wind. Whilst the Sun-Earth L2 position doesn’t have a magnetosphere, it is subject to the influence of the solar wind. Given just how valuable a piece of space real estate its is proving to be with several mission operating in orbits around it, understanding more about the role the solar wind and plasma plays in the overall stability of the region makes a lot of sense – and ESCAPADE’s science capabilities mean its two satellites can carry out this work whilst they loiter there through 2026.

Currently, both satellites are performing well, having unfolded their solar arrays and charged themselves up. As noted, they will make a fly-by of Earth in late 2026 to slingshot themselves on to Mars, which they will reach in 2027. On their arrival, they will initially share a highly elliptical orbit varying between 8,400 km and 170 km above the surface of the planet, operating in tandem for six months. After this, they will  manoeuvre into different orbits with different periods and extremes, allowing them to both operate independently to one another in their observations and to also carry out comparative studies of the same regions of the Martian magnetosphere from different points in space.

What’s Next for New Glenn?

As of the time of writing, Never Tell Me the Odds remains at sea aboard the landing platform vessel Jacklyn. Following its successful landing, the booster went through an extensive “safing” procedure managed by an automated vehicle, during which propellants and hazardous gasses were removed, and its systems purged with inert helium. Assuming it is in a condition allowing it to be refurbished and reused as planned following its return to dry land, the stage will most likely re-fly in early 2026 as part of an even more ambitious mission.

Never Tell Me the Odds re-lights three of its BE-4 motors, creating an atmosphere shockwave (to the right of the booster) as it drops back into the denser atmosphere ahead of landing. If all goes according to current plans, this stage will be refurbished and used to power New Glenn’s next launch, currently targeting early 2026 with a lunar mission. Credit: Blue Origin via a NASA observation aircraft

GS1-SN002-2, provisionally aiming for a January 2026 launch, is intended to fly the Blue Moon Pathfinder mission to the Moon, where it will attempt a soft landing as part of a demonstration of capabilities required for NASA’s Project Artemis. Blue Moon is the name given to Blue Origin’s family of in-development lunar landing craft, with Blue Moon Mark 1 being a cargo vehicle capable of remote operations and delivering around 3 tonnes of materiel to the surface of the Moon per flight, and Blue Moon Mark 2 being a larger crewed vehicle capable of delivering up to 4 people at a time to the Moon for extended periods.

Both of these craft use common elements: avionics, propulsion systems (the BE-7 cryogenic engine), navigation and precision landing systems, data and communications systems, etc.  Blue Moon Pathfinder is intended to demonstrate all of these systems and capabilities, landing the vehicle on the Moon within 100 metres of a designated landing point. If successful on all counts, GS1-SN002-2 will not only demonstrate / confirm the reusability of the New Glenn first stage, it will provide a very clear and practical demonstration of Blue Origin’s emerging lunar mission capabilities, something which may well justify claims that the company is somewhat ahead of SpaceX in having a lunar landing capability that could meet the 2027/28 launch time frame for Artemis 3, the first crewed mission of the programme intended to land on the Moon.

Space Sunday: Goddard fears and comet updates

A 2010 view of a part of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, Maryland. NASA’s first – and largest – research centre, the largest combined organisation of scientists and engineers in the United States dedicated to increasing knowledge of the Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe via observations from space – under threat of full or partial closure. Credit: NASA

Goddard: Death by a Thousand Cuts?

Earlier in 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s apparent drive to decimate NASA’s science budget with it 2026 federal budget proposal (see: Space Sunday: of budgets and proposed cuts and Space Sunday: more NASA budgets threats). Within those pieces, I noted that one of the major targets within NASA when it came to potential cuts was the agency’s largest research centre, the Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC), Greenbelt, Maryland.

GSFC’s work in Earth sciences and observations – which obviously encompasses research into anthropomorphic causes of global warming and climate change, monitoring atmospheric and oceanographic pollution, etc., – is potentially the major reason for the nonsensical dislike both of Trump’s administration have shown towards the centre, although it is only in the current administration period that increasingly efforts to drastically reduce Goddard’s science abilities have been shown; efforts which overtly commenced in April 2025 with the effective discontinuing of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS – see the first of my articles linked to above).

As I noted at the time, GISS – renowned world-wide for its Earth sciences research across a number of disciplines, including agriculture, crop growth and sustainability and climatology (including building some of the largest datasets on current and past climate trends and fluctuations) has been an “off-campus” division of GSFC, operating out of the (Edwin) Armstrong Building operated by Columbia University and leased by the US government at a cost of 3.3 million a year, with said lease budgeted at this amount through until 2031.

At the end of April 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the directorship of Project 2025 co-author Russell Voight (and a long-time, ultra-conservative with a hefty dislike of space and Earth sciences) announced it was terminating the lease effective from the end of May 2025, with no attempt being made to relocate personnel and the majority of the GISS data. Instead, staff were simply told to “work remotely”, with the then-director of GSFC, Dr. Makenzie Lystrup, unable to do anything in the face of the cancellation, other than offer her “confidence” that all GISS staff and activities would be relocated at some point in the future – which has not happened. Instead, staff GISS remain on “temporary remote working status”, within only some of the on-going work carried out by GISS being haphazardly relocated to “temporary” facilities at GSFC and elsewhere.

Not only did the “remote working status” shift for GISS staff stand at odds with another OMB directive requiring all federal agencies end remote working practices and return staff to office-based work, the closure of the Armstrong Building facilities meant that the vast amounts of data curated by GISS had no active home, and thus could not be accessed by GISS personnel, making it impossible for many of them to continue their work.

Among its many roles, Goddard was responsible for tracking many early crewed and uncrewed spacecraft, including the Mercury flights, via a worldwide network of ground stations called the Spacecraft Tracking and Data Acquisition Network (STDN). Credit: NASA

Since then, the situation for GSFC as a whole has worsened (as it has for some other key NASA activities spread across multiple centres). In particular, the new senior management team as brought-in by the Trump Administration appears to be acting as if the the 2026 budget has been signed into law and that all of the proposals contained in it as they relate to NASA / GSFC are now policy to be enacted without question or consultation.

In fact, when the former GSFC Director, the aforementioned Dr. Makenzie Lystrup, did attempt to consult with GSFC personnel via a series of town hall meetings (as were being held within other NASA centres), she was dismissed from her post in July 2025, to be replaced by her deputy, Cynthia Simmons, who adopted a similar autocratic “follow orders, don’t question” approach as had been adopted by GSFC’s incoming Director of the Engineering & Technology Division (ETD), Segrid Harris, earlier in 2025 year.

Goddard’s major claims to fame are the development and management of many of NASA’s most significant planetary and deep space missions, up to and including the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), seen here undergoing assembly in one of the centre’s massive clean rooms. Credit: NASA / Rebecca Roth

In moving to implement the “requirements” of the Trump 2026 NASA budget, both NASA senior management and the upper management of GSFC have sought to accelerate elements of what was to have been a 20-year development roadmap for Goddard, first initiated in 2019. This was to have seen the gradual internal relocation of divisions and departments on the campus, the closure of older facilities (and their potential replacement) and the phased removal of certain activities to other NASA centres.  All of this was to have been carried out in full consultation with the affected divisions and departments and their personnel.

Now, however, this 20-year plan is being accelerated without explanation or consultation, with around one-third of the campus in the process of being emptied / abandoned, with some buildings being demolished, others simply being left to an uncertain future. Rather than taking several years to complete, the work is now set to be finished by March 2026. Facilities included in this tranche of work comprise the GSFC Visitor’s Centre (and that of the Wallops Island launch facilities, also operated by GSFC), effectively ending GSFC public-facing operations; and the majority of facilities geared towards personnel welfare – health and welfare facilities, cafeterias, recreational facilities, etc., together with a number of R&D and laboratory facilities.

A map of Goddard Space Centre, showing those facilities /buildings earmarked for closure / demolition (in orange-red). Those to the left of the two bright red lines (marking Goddard Road) are undergoing an “expedited” closure / demolition / abandonment, due to be completed by March 2026. Credit: Josh Dinner, obtained under US FOIA

Further, despite the current government shutdown, staff in facilities and buildings earmarked for relocation / closure elsewhere within the campus were, on the day the shutdown commenced, ordered to pack-up their office space / research so they might be relocated during the shutdown. Normally, if such an office move is to be performed when federal employees are furloughed, a federal work exception must be filed by the agency involved. However, reports suggest that of the 100 office relocation notifications issued at GSFC ahead of the shutdown, only two were had the required exceptions filed. Thus, there is a concern among personnel that the shutdown might yet be used as a cover to close additional facilities at the centre.

Of particular concern among GSFC personnel is the fact that some of the proposed relocation work will see divisions which had been specifically relocated to Goddard or formed under its auspices to oversee matters of safety across related aspects of NASA’s operations, thus preventing the kind of inter-centre clashes of management which contributed to tragedies like Challenger from ever happening again, being once more broken-up among various centres, once more diluting their ability to function effectively.

Such is the level of concern both within NASA personnel at GSFC and many of its supporting / affiliated partners such as the Planetary Society – that there have already been three public protests concerning what is happening both at GSFC and to NASA’s science budget in general. The most recent of these was held on Capitol Hill on October 5th, when both the House and Senate were directly called upon to intervene in the manner in which NASA’s non-human spaceflight activities are being impacted, and to force the Executive Branch to continue to properly fund all NASA centres pending the resolution of the current budget crisis.

GSFC staff working under the banner NASA Needs Help, attend a rally outside the US Capitol Building on October 5th, 2025, together with organisations such as The Planetary Society (represented by CEO Bill Nye) to extoll representatives and senators to support NASA’s science mission in the face of Executive branch opposition.

Nor is such concern limited just to NASA personnel and their affiliates. A recent report published by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation goes so far as to state a belief that the current actions on the part of the Executive branch where NASA is concerned could be illegal. For its part, NASA’s headquarters and the administration have responded to all concerns being voiced from all sides as being “false”, “inflammatory”, “wrong”, and – in the case of the Senate report – a “Democratic distraction”. Not only is the latter another demonstration of the Trump administration’s efforts to continually cry wolf and point the finger when their actions are rightfully challenged, it is also patently stupid, given the Senate Committee in question (as with all such Senate committees) is both Republican led and dominated (15 seats to 13), making any report it releases that is critical of the Executive branch to be bipartisan in nature.

A further irony here – which might actually be seen as both causative as well as foreshadowing – is that prior to her departure from the post of Acting NASA Administrator (to be replaced by Sean Duffy), Janet Petro issued two memos to all department heads at GSFC, stating that they should start enacting upcoming Trump’s budget requirements regardless of whether or not the budget would be passed by Congress. Exactly why she would do this is unclear, but it has been suggested that she saw it as inevitable that the Trump Administration would seek to force through their 2026 budget via funding impoundment rather than via working with lawmakers, and as such, GSFC would be better placed in being ready to adhere rather than attempting to oppose.

Currently, exactly what is going to happen at Goddard is unclear – but a lot of people at the centre have spoken out through various channels about their concerns and both the level of uncertainty at the centre and the frequently oppressive style of management now present.  It is evident from this that many at the centre are completely demoralised. Earlier this year, NASA, under Sean Duffy, implemented a Deferred Resignation Programme (DRP) aimed at reducing the number of people directly employed by NASA by 20%, in line with the Trump budget proposal. At the time of writing, some 4,000 NASA employees were reported as having signed DRP agreements – 21% of NASA’s total direct workforce. Of these 4,000, 11% came from GSFC, the largest number of DRP agreements signed by staff at any single NASA centre.

On top of this, and following her ousting from Goddard as Director, Dr. Lystrup indicated that as many as 32% of GSFC’s federal staff will be departing NASA both as a result of the DRP programme and due to non-consultative re-organisations and shutdowns (as with GISS) targeting the centre. As such, the long-term future of the centre as a central pillar of NASA’s space and Earth sciences capabilities would appear to be in grave doubt.

3I/ATLAS

Comet 3I/ATLAS is the third confirmed object of extra-solar origin to be identified by astronomers as it passes through our solar system. It is also, and completely unsurprisingly, the third to be subject to all sorts of wild and completely incorrect assertions / suggestions that is is both artificial in nature and alien in construction.

3I/ATLAS captured by the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph on Gemini South at Cerro Pachón in Chile. Credit : IGO / NOIRLab / NSF /AURA)

I’ve covered 3I/ALTAS and some of the wild claims around it already in these pages (see here, here, and here), and as the evidence mounted that yes, it is in fact a natural object, albeit one originally formed far beyond our solar system, I’d hoped that the “alien artefact” theories would fade away. And they almost did.

However, in late September, and as it continued to close on the Sun, 3I/ATLAS “abruptly” changed colour when seen in natural light, becoming bright green. Such changes of colour are not uncommon with comets as they become more and more active as they approach the Sun and start outgassing greater volumes of chemicals and minerals trapped within them. In this, green is actually a common colour for comets, signalling as it does the presence of diatomic carbon – a chemical long-range spectrographic analysis had suggested might be present within the make-up of 3I/ATLAS. Unfortunately, this did not prevent the alien artefact theorist proclaiming the colour change as “evidence” of the comet’s artificial nature.

Comet 3I/ATLAS ‘going green’ in late September. Credit: Gerald Rhemann / Michael Jager

Then, at the start of October 3I/ATLAS passed within 0.19 AU of Mars, allowing it to be imaged by NASA’s orbiters and rovers. However, in order to compensation for 3I/ATLAS’ very low magnitude (+11), these attempts required long exposure times, and because the comet was moving at 58 kilometres per second relative to the Sun throughout the exposure time, the resulting images revealed the comet not as a rounded object, but one that appeared to be somewhat cylindrical in shape, once again causing the alien artefact theorists to again shout, “See! It’s artificial!”

At the same time, as this was happening, the US government shutdown commenced, halting many NASA activities, including proving on-going updates on missions and activities and things like 3I/ATLAS. However, rather than acknowledging the sudden “silence” from NASA was caused by the shutdown, the conspiracists decided it was because NASA had accidentally revealed a “hidden truth” about 3I/ATLAS in the images of it returned via the Mars missions (notably the Perseverance rover).

Oblivious to all of this, 3I/ATLAS reached perihelion on October 29th, passing the Sun at a distance of just 1.36 AU. Unfortunately, it did so on the opposite side of the Sun relative to Earth, so we had to rely on a number of deep space missions – including NASA’s PUNCH (Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere) mission, ESA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and NOAA’s GOES-19 satellite – to try to capture images of the event. Sadly, the combination of comet’s small size and closeness to the Sun did not make for particularly exciting images, the latter’s brightness largely wiping out the light and colour of the comet.

However, this does not mean we are no devoid of any further opportunities to see the comet. During November, 3I/ATLAS will re-emerge from “behind” the sun as it starts to head back out of the solar system. As it does so, it will have a much higher apparent magnitude, making it an ideal target for study not only for the big observatories like Vera C. Rubin, but also potentially by anyone with a larger amateur telescope (e.g. 10-in or larger).

Most excitingly, perhaps is that during November, 3I/ATLAS will be ideally placed for ESA’s Juice mission to take a couple of peeks at it.

ESA’s Juice mission (lavender line), having recently completed a flyby of Venus as it gather the momentum it needs to hurl itself out to Jupiter, should have two opportunities to study 3I/ATLAS, one starting on November 2nd, 2025, when the two will pass relatively close to one another in opposite directions, and another on November 25th, when Juice will be able to “look back” towards 3I/ATLAS. Credit: ESA

On November 2nd, 2025, Juice will be able to start a “hot” observation of 3I/ATLAS, hopefully catching it while it is still very active as it moves away from the Sun. However, this observation period will be slightly limited, as the instruments will need to be cooled between observations because they are not designed to continuously operate in the temperature environments close to the Sun. A second, “cooler” period of observation will commence on November 25th, when Juice has once more moved beyond the orbit of Earth and will be able to “look back” on the comet as it continues on its way out of the inner solar system.

All of these observations are likely to further confirm 3I/ATLAS as a remarkable interstellar comet, one much older than our own solar system; something which is a marvel in and of itself without any need to attribute its origin or presence in our back yard to some form of alien intelligence bent on mischief towards us.

Space Sunday: of Artemis 3 and NASA administrators

Artemis Human Landing Systems (HLS): is Blue Origin’s Blue Moon (l) likely to usurp SpaceX’s Starship HLS (r) for Artemis 3? Credit: Blue Origin / SpaceX

What has long been recognised by many who follow the US-led Project Artemis programme to return humans to the Moon now appears to be becoming recognised within the upper echelons of NASA’s management. Namely, that the biggest hold-up to the programme’s primary goal of safely landing a crew on the surface of the Moon and returning them to lunar orbit remains the inability of SpaceX to meet NASA’s – or even its own – time frames and deadlines in the development its Starship-derived Human Landing System (HLS) vehicle.

SpaceX was awarded the contract to develop the initial vehicle intended to deliver crews from cislunar space to the Moon’s South Pole and then return them back to cislunar space over five years ago, in May 2020. At the time, the announcement was controversial for a numbers of reasons:

  • It was both a last-minute entry into the competition to provide NASA with a suitable HLS vehicle, and the most technically complex of the three major proposal which went forward to the final selection process, requiring up to 14 launches of the SpaceX Starship / Superheavy system just to get it to lunar orbit.
The SpaceX HLS system for Artemis 3, comprising an orbital “refuelling depot” (far left) plus multiple Starship tanker launches (centre left) and the Starship HLS itself in order to deliver a 2-person crew launched by SLS / Orion (centre) to / from the surface of the Moon, with Orion returning them to Earth with their fellow Orion crew (right). Note that while only 4 “tanker” launches are shown in this graphic, given current projected Starship payload capacities, the number is more likely to be 8-12 such launches. Credit: SpaceX
  • Despite NASA stating two options for the initial HLS would be selected, only the SpaceX option was carried forward in the so-called “Option A” contract, with NASA providing SpaceX with an initial US $2.89 billion for vehicle development, with both Blue Origin and Dynetics effectively being frozen out.
  • The driving force behind the decision to go exclusively with SpaceX was NASA associate Administrator Kathryn Lueders, who had a long-standing relationship with SpaceX, and who subsequently retired from NASA in 2023 to join SpaceX. Whilst highly speculative in nature, there have been fingers pointed towards this chain of events as being more than coincidental.
  • The decision to go with SpaceX alone for at least the Artemis 3 mission (the first planned crewed landing) was upheld by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in July 2021 after both Blue Origin and Dynetics filed complaints about the handling of the contract on NASA’s part. This decision came in spite of NASA’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) having already reporting that the agency’s own estimates for the development time frame for HLS (four years) was entirely unrealistic, and that due to its complexity the SpaceX HLS approach would potentially result in the most severe of anticipated delays in HLS development, requiring up to 4 additional years of development and testing in order to be flight-ready.
  • In December 2023, a NASA Key Decision Point (KDP) review for Artemis 3, intended to assess whether or not the programme was on course to meet its intended targets, rated SpaceX as having only a 70% of achieving a required uncrewed demonstration test flight of their HLS vehicle (including landing it on the Moon and returning it to lunar orbit) by February 2028, some two years behind the Option A contract goal of flying this mission in mid-2026.

Oddly, both SpaceX and NASA placed part of the blame for the delay to the demonstration test with on-going (at the time) issues with the Orion crew capsule heat shield – even though Orion is an entirely separate vehicle to HLS, and does not form part of the contracted SpaceX HLS demonstration flight.

Further, while SpaceX has pointed to the 30 HLS development milestones it has achieved, these relate to hardware needed for power generation, communications, guidance and navigation, propulsion, life support, and space environments protection, rather than the vehicle as a whole, with some of these milestones either relating purely to the definition of some of this hardware, rather than any form of development and / or integrated testing.

Whilst SpaceX points to having achieved some 30 hardware milestones for its HLS vehicle, several of these milestones refer to system definitions, rather than hardware development, whilst other elements – such as the elevator system required to get the down the 30 metres separating the vehicle’s crew section from the surface of the Moon – has largely been driven by NASA rather than SpaceX. Credit: NASA / SpaceX

By the start of 2024, concerns around SpaceX’s ability to actually deliver on their promises for their HLS vehicle were such that Jim Free, the man then at NASA charged with overseeing the Artemis programme, was openly talking in terms of potentially swapping the Artemis 3 and Artemis 5 missions, the latter intended to be the first use of the Blue Moon HLS system in development by Blue Origin, and which at the time was seen as much further along in its development cycle than the SpaceX system.

Whilst Free has since retired from NASA, the acting administrator for the agency, Sean Duffy, echoed Free’s point of view on October 20th, 2025, indicating that he is now open to reviewing the Artemis 3 HLS contract. In particular, he has also suggested shifting to using Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander on the basis of growing scepticism that SpaceX will have their HLS system ready for Artemis 3 by 2028/29.

Whilst Artemis 3 remains mired in conflict, Artemis 2, the first crewed mission for the programme using NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion, achieved a further milestone on it wat to the launch pad on October 20th, 2025, when the Orion vehicle, encased in its launch shroud and topped by the Launch Abort System, was lowered from a high bay within the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at Kennedy Space Centre, Florida, and mated to its adaptor on the top of the SLS rocket. Artemis 2 is currently expected to launch in March 0r April 2026 on a 10-day mission around the Moon. Credit: NASA

Unsurprisingly in this age of politics by insult, Duffy’s comments were met with childish name-calling on the part of the SpaceX CEO. To be sure, Duffy is perhaps not the best qualified to be leading NASA even on an interim basis (and has made a fair number of gaffes as head of the Department of Transportation); but as per the reasons noted above, there is good reason to question whether SpaceX can meet its obligations for HLS even within the revised times frame for the Artemis 3 mission (which is now looking to a possible 2028 launch).

Nor did the SpaceX CEO limit his scorn to Duffy; in the same string of social media posts he took aim at Blue Origin, claiming the company “has never delivered a payload to orbit, let alone the Moon” (which he later refined to mean “useful payload”). Given that the launch vehicle for Blue Moon – Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket – both successfully achieved Earth orbit and deployed a payload demonstrator on its maiden flight, both of which Starship has yet to do in a single launch despite (at the time of writing) 11 flights, this critique came over as little more than a petulant outburst than a reasoned defence of Starship HLS.

Following Duffy’s statements – which appear to also be driven in part by concerns over China’s stated aim to place taikonauts on the Moon by 2030 – speculation was rife in some circles as to whether NASA might seek to an alternative to SpaceX and Blue Origin as the Artemis 3 HLS provider. This speculation encapsulated both the idea that NASA might try for a “home-grown” HLS, or bring-in another company – such as Lockheed Martin (which has made no secret of its desire to supply an HLS alongside of its Orion crew vehicle) – to provide a suitable HLS.

However, given the lead-times involved in seriously moving forward with either of these options (which would likely see Artemis 3 pushed back well beyond a 2029), coupled with the costs involved when the Trump Administration is aggressively trying to reduce NASA’s budget, it would seem unlikely that either of these options would be seriously taken-up. As it stands and in the wake of Duffy’s comments, NASA has confirmed that both Blue Origin and SpaceX have been given until October 29th, 2025 to submit “accelerated proposals” for HLS development, but no other proposals for “alternate” HLS vehicles are currently being sought.

Exactly where this will all lead is also open to debate. As does, ironically enough, the overall leadership of NASA. Whilst only appointed Acting Administrator for the agency, Duffy has spent some of his time in the role floating the idea that NASA should be folded into his Department of Transportation. Were this to happen, it would effectively cement his position as the person in overall charge of the agency and its budget – although the idea has already received widespread pushback from the US space industry as a whole. At the same time, the White House has indicated it is possibly going to re-nominate Jared Isaacman for the role of NASA Administrator.

As I reported at the time in this pages, Isaacman was on the verge of being confirmed to the role earlier in 2025, when Trump’s White House abruptly withdrew his name as their nominee following a public spat between Trump and the SpaceX CEO (with whom Isaacman has had a close working relationship for several years), who at the time was coming to the end of his tenure as a “special advisor” to the White House. However, on October 14th, it was revealed that the Trump Administration has again been in talks with Isaacman about a potential resumption of his nomination to lead NASA, which he apparently is still interested in doing.

Space Sunday: of moons and Mars

The Artemis 2 mission profile. Credit: Canadian Space Agency (CSA)

NASA has announced that Artemis 2 – the first mission of the programme to send a crew to cislunar space – is now targeting a launch for the period between February 5th, 2026 and the end of April 2026.

The 10-day mission will carry a crew of four – three Americans and one Canadian – to the vicinity of the Moon and then back to Earth aboard an Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) in what will be the final test of that vehicle and its systems, together with the second flight of NASA’s Block 1 Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. The latter – SLS – is currently undergoing the final steps in its assembly process. Earlier this year the core and upper stages of the rocket were stacked at Kennedy Space Centre’s Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), where the two solid rocket boosters also stacked within the VAB were then attached to either side of the rocket’s core stage.

Meanwhile, and as I noted in August 2025, the Orion vehicle for the mission, together with its European-built Service Module, moved from NASA’s Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) to the Launch Abort System Facility (LASF), where it is being mated with its launch abort system tower. Once completed, the combination of Orion and launch abort system will be transferred to the VAB for installation on the SLS vehicle.

Two images of NASA engineers installing the Orion Stage Adapter  (just visible, top left) onto the the top of the mission’s SLS launch vehicle, inside the High Bay of the Vehicle Assembly building (VAB), Kennedy Space Centre, September 2025. Credit: NASA

To this end, at the end of September 2025, NASA integrated the Artemis 2 Orion Stage Adapter with the rest of the SLS system. As its name suggests, the Orion Stage Adapter is the element required to mate Orion to the launch vehicle. In addition, the adapter will be used to deploy four CubeSats containing science and technology experiments into a high Earth orbit after Orion has separated from the SLS upper stage and is en route to the Moon.

Also at the end of September, the four crew due to fly the mission – Reid Wiseman (mission commander), Victor Glover, and Christina Koch all from NASA, and Canada’s Jeremy Hansen – revealed the name they had chosen for their Orion capsule: Integrity.

A couple months ago, we thought, as a crew, we need to name this spacecraft. We need to have a name for the Orion spacecraft that we’re going to ride this magical mission on. And so we got the four of us together and our backups, Jenny Gibbons from the Canadian Space Agency and Andre Douglas from NASA, and we went over to the quarantine facility here, and we basically locked ourselves in there until we came up with a name.

– Artemis 2 mission commander, Reid Wiseman

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 during an integrated ground systems test at Kennedy Space Centre, September 20th, 2023. Credit: Kim Shiflett

Integrity will be the second Orion capsule to join NASA’s operational fleet, the first being the still unnamed craft flown during the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission in 2022. That mission revealed an issue with the initial design of the vehicle’s re-entry heat shield, which received more and deeper damage than had been anticipated (see: Space Sunday: New Glenn, Voyager and Orion). This delayed Artemis 2 in order for investigations into the cause to take place and solutions determined.

In short: a return from the Moon involves far higher velocities than a return from Earth orbit (entering the atmosphere at 40,000 km/h compared to 28,000 km/h), resulting in far higher temperatures being experienced as the atmosphere around the vehicle is super-heated by the friction of the vehicle’s passage through it, further leading to increased ablation of the heat shield. This could be offset by using a very substantial and heavy heat shield, but as Orion is also intended to be launched on vehicles other than SLS and for other purposes (e.g. just flying to / from low Earth orbit), it is somewhat mass-critical and in need of a more lightweight heat shield.

As a result, rather than making a single plunge back into Earth’s atmosphere at the end of lunar missions, Orion was supposed to perform a series of initial “skips” or “dips” in and out of the denser atmosphere. These would allow the vehicle bleed-off velocity ahead of a “full” re-entry whilst also reducing the amount of plasma heating to which the ablative material of the heat shield would be exposed.

However, post-flight analysis of the heat shield used in the Artemis 1 mission of 2022, it was found that the heat shield had suffered extensive and worryingly deep material loss – referred to as “char loss”, resulting in a series of deep pits within the heat shield. Investigation revealed the cause of this being the initial “skips” the vehicle made into and out of the denser atmosphere.

While these “skips” did indeed reduce the load on the outer layers of the heat shield, they also had the unintended impact of heating-up gases trapped inside the ablative layers of the heat shield during its construction, causing the underlying layer of the material in the heat shield to expand and contract and start to crack and break. They, when the capsule entered its final plunge through the atmosphere prior to splashdown, the material over these damaged areas ablated away as intended, exposing the damaged material, which then quickly broke-up to leave the pits and holes.

Two of the official NASA images showing the severe pitting and damage caused to the Orion heat shield following re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere at the end of the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission, December 11th, 2022. Credit: NASA / NASA OIG

To mitigate this, Artemis 3 and 4 will fly with a redesigned heat shield attached to their Orion capsules. However, Artemis 2 will fly with the same design as used in Artemis 1, but its re-entry profile has been substantially altered so it will carry out fewer “skips” in and out of the atmosphere before the final entry, and will do so at angles that will reduce the amount of internal heating within the heat shield layers.

Ahead of its launch, the complete Artemis 2 launch vehicle and payload should be rolled-out from the VAB to the launch pad early in 2026. It will then go through a series of pre-flight demonstration tests, up to and including a full “wet dress rehearsal”, wherein the rocket will be fully fuelled with propellants and go through a full countdown and lunch operation, stopping just short of actually igniting the engines. These test will then clear the way for the crewed launch.

Flying over Mars with Mars Express

When it comes to exploring Mars, NASA understandably tends to get the lion’s share of attention, simply by volume of its operational missions on and around the Red Planet. However, they are far from alone; Mars is very much an international destination, so to speak. One of the longest continuous missions to operate around Mars, for example, is Europe’s Mars Express mission, an orbiter which has been studying Mars for more than 22 years, marking it as the second-longest running such mission after NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission (now in its 24th year since launch).

During its time in orbit, Mars Express has provided the most complete map of the Martian atmosphere and its chemical composition currently available; produced thousands of high-definition images of the planet’s surface, revealing many of its unique features whilst also helping scientists understand the role of liquid water in the formation of the ancient Martian landscape; acted as a communications relay between other Mars missions and Earth, and it has even studied the innermost of Mars’ two captive moons, Phobos.

An infographic released by the European Space Agency in 2023 to celebrate 20 years of continuous operations by Mars Express around Mars. Credit: ESA

It is through the high-definition images returned by the orbiter that ESA has at times promoted the mission to the general public, notably through the release of galleries of images and the production of detailed “flyover” videos of the planet, revealing its unique terrain to audiences through the likes of You Tube. At the start of October 2025, ESA released the latest of these movies featuring the remarkable Xanthe Terra (“golden-yellow land”). Located just north of the Martian equator and to the south of Chryse Planitia where Viking Lander 1 touched-down on July 20th, 1976, and a place noted for its many indications that water played a major role in its formation.

The images used in the film were gathered using the orbiter’s High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) during a single orbit of the planet. Following their transmission to Earth, these were combined with topography data gathered in the same pass to create a three-dimensional view of a part of the region centred on Shalbatana Vallis, a 1300 km-long outflow channel running from the southern highlands into the northern lowlands on the edge of Chryse Planitia. The film also includes passage over Da Vinci crater. Some 100 km across, this crater is intriguing as it contains a smaller, more recent impact crater within it, complete with debris field.

Uranian Moon Ariel the Latest Moon to have an Ocean?

Jupiter’s Galilean moons of Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, together with Saturn’s Enceladus and Titan are all thought to have (or had) oceans of icy slush or liquid water under their surfaces. In the case of the Galilean moons, the evidence is so strong, Both NASA and ESA are currently sending probes to Jupiter to study them and their interiors. Similarly, the evidence for Enceladus – as I’ve covered numerous times in these pages – having a liquid water ocean under its ice is so powerful that calls for a mission to visit it are equally as strong.

Now Uranus is getting in on the act of having moons with what could be (or could have been) liquid water oceans under their surfaces, the latest contender being Ariel, the planet’s fourth largest and second closest of Uranus’s moons in hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. largely globular in shape) to the planet, after Miranda.

Measuring just 1,160 km in diameter, Ariel is a comparatively tiny moon and not too much is known about it, other than it its density suggests it is made up of a mix of rock and ice, with a lean towards the latter. It orbits and rotates in Uranus’s equatorial plane, which is almost perpendicular to the planet’s orbit, giving the moon an extreme seasonal cycle. But the most remarkable aspect of  Ariel is its extreme mix of geological structures: massive surface fractures, ridges and grabens – part of the moon’s crust that have dropped lower than its surroundings—at scales larger than almost anywhere else in the solar system.

The southern hemisphere of Ariel as imaged be NASA’s Voyager 2 in 1986, showing some of the extreme surfaces features – graben – along the line of the terminator. Credit: NASA; post-processing clean-up by Kevin M. Gill.

Only one space mission has come close to visiting Ariel. NASA’s Voyager 2 zipped by the moon in 1986 at a distance of 127,000 km. This allowed the probe’s camera system to gather images of around 35% of the moon’s surface that were of sufficient spatial resolution (approx. 2 km) so as to be useful for geological mapping. It has been these images which have allowed a team of researchers led by the Planetary Science Institute and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to embark on an effort to understand Ariel’s likely interior structure and how its dramatic surface features might have been produced.

First, we mapped out the larger structures that we see on the surface, then we used a computer program to model the tidal stresses on the surface, which result from distortion of Ariel from soccer ball-shaped to slight football-shaped and back as it moves closer and farther from Uranus during its orbit. By combining the model with what we see on the surface, we can make inferences about Ariel’s past eccentricity and how thick the ocean might have been.

– Study co-author  Alex Patthoff, Planetary Science Institute

Captured on July 26th, 2006 by the Hubble Space Telescope, this infrared image of Uranus showing tiny Ariel making a rare visible-from-Earth transit of its parent planet and casting a shadow on Uranus’ upper atmosphere. Credit: NASA / Space Telescope Science Institute

The movement of the moon towards and away from Uranus – its orbital eccentricity –is important, because it represents how much the moon is being affected by different gravitational forces from Uranus and the other four globular moons dancing around the planet. Forces which can causes stresses within the moon which might act as engines for generating the kinds of surface features imaged by Voyager 2.

Overall the team calculate that in the distant past, Ariel’s eccentricity was likely around 0.04. This doesn’t sound much, but it is actually 40 times greater that Ariel’s current eccentricity, suggesting that its orbit around Uranus was once more elliptical than we see today, but over the aeons it has gradually moved toward becoming more circular.

However, and more particularly, an eccentricity of 0.04 is actually four times greater than that of Jupiter’s Europa – a moon in an almost constant state of flux thanks to the gravitational influences of Jupiter and the other Galilean moons that it may well have a deep subsurface liquid ocean kept warm by geothermal venting powered by similar gravitational forces that may have been / are affecting Ariel.

Thus, if Ariel conforms to the Europan model, the team suggest that it could potentially harbour a liquid or semi-liquid water ocean, and that at one time, during the period of greatest orbital stresses, this ocean could have been entirely liquid in nature and some 170 kilometres deep. Such an ocean, the modelling revealed, would be fully capable of helping to produce surface features on Ariel of the same nature as those seen by Voyager 2, thanks to the internal stresses and movement of such a volume of water.

This same team carried out a similar study of tiny (just 470 km in diameter) Miranda. It also has curious surface features, a density suggesting it likely has an icy interior and a position where it is subject to contrasting gravitational forces courtesy of Uranus and the other moons. Applying their modelling to the available images data of Miranda also taken by Voyager 2, the team concluded there is a strong potential that at some point in the past, it may have had a subsurface liquid water ocean, although this may have long since become partially or fully frozen.

The highest-resolution Voyager 2 colour image of Ariel, captured in 1986. Canyons with floors covered by smooth plains – their smoothness believed to be the result of cryovolcanism – are visible at lower right. The bright crater Laica is at lower left. Credit: NASA/JPL

Whether or not either of these tiny moon does have any remaining subsurface liquid water, or whether their interiors have long since frozen, is obviously unknown. The team also admit that their work is entirely based on data gathered by Voyager 2 on the southern hemispheres of Miranda and Ariel; the nature of their northern hemispheres being entirely unknown. As such, a future study on both northern hemispheres might reveal factors and features that could dramatically change our understanding of both moons and their possible formation, and thus change the findings in both studies.

But for the meantime, two more potentially subsurface hycean moons in the solar system can be added to the list of such bodies.