Space Sunday: lunar ambitions: the real and the not-so-real

The core stage of China’s new Long March 10 (CZ-10A variant) booster uses a single motor to ease itself into the waters of the South China Sea to await recovery after a highly successful test flight. Credit: CCTV video footage

The current “race for the Moon” is turning into a hare-and-tortoise situation on several levels, including internationally. On the one hand, there is America’s (arguably over-complicated, thanks to NASA’s insistence on the use of cryogenic propulsion to get to / from the lunar surface) Artemis programme, which seems to race along in fits and bursts (and frequently slams itself into a wall of delay) and then there is China’s more conservative “latter-day Apollo” approach, which quietly plods along, racking up achievements and milestones whilst seeming to be technologically far behind US-led efforts.

As noted, China’s approach to reaching the Moon, is something of a harkening back to the days of Apollo in that it uses a relatively small-scale crewed vehicle for getting between Earth and the Moon, and a similarly small-scale lander. However, size isn’t everything, and both crew vehicle and lander (the latter of which has a cargo variant) would be more than capable in allowing China to establish a modest human presence on the Moon, just as their Tiangong space station, whilst barely 1/4 the size of the International Space Station, has allowed them to do the same in Earth orbit. It is also important to recognise it as part of an integrated, step-by-step lunar programme officially called the Chinese Lunar Exploration Programme (CLEP) and familiarly referenced as the Chang’e Project after the Chinese Goddess of the Moon, which has allowed China to develop both a greater understanding of operations on the Moon and in understanding the Moon itself.

The Chang’e project commenced over 20 years ago, and recorded its first successes in 2007 and 2010 with its Phase 1 orbital robotic missions. This was followed by the Phase II lander / rover missions (Chang’e 3 and Chang’e 4) in 2013 and 2018 respectively, and then the Phase III sample return mission of Chang’e 5 (2020).

Currently, the programme is in its fourth phase, an extensive study of the South Polar Region of the Moon in preparation for human landings, nominally targeting 2030. This phase of the programme has already seen the highly successful Chang’e 6 mission, the first to retrieve surface samples from the Moon’s far side, as well as deploying a rover there. 2026 will see Chang’e 7 launched, a high concept resource seeking mission comprising an orbiter, lander and “lunar flyer”, all geared to locate resources which can be utilised by future missions.

China’s Chang’e 6 mission, launched in May 2024, was the first Chinese mission to the far side of the Moon, and the first mission to ever return samples gathered from the lunar far side and return them to Earth (June 2024). In this image, Chang’e 6 is seen from the Jinchan mini-rover, which piggybacked a ride to the Moon with the lander. Credit: CNSA.

In 2028, the last of the Phase IV mission will launch. Chang’e 8 is intended to be a combination of in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) test bed, demonstrating how local materials (water ice, regolith) can be used to produce structures on the Moon via advanced 3D printing, and to establish a small ecosystem experiment in advance of human landings.

This approach means that from a standing start, China has replicated much of NASA’s work of the 1960s that helped pave the way for Apollo, but in much greater depth. It’s not unfair to say that by retuning such a focused series of mission phases – notably Phase IV – China potentially will develop a greater spread of knowledge concerning the Moon’s South Polar Region than NASA.

At the same time, China has been developing the hardware required for the human side of the Chang’e Project. This primarily takes the form of their Mengzhou (“Dream Vessel”) reusable crewed vehicle, the Lanyue (“Embracing the Moon”) 2-stage lunar  lander / ascent vehicle and the Long March 10 semi-reusable heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) offering a very similar capability to Blue Origin’s New Glenn vehicle.

Mengzhou is being developed in two variants: a low Earth orbit (LEO) variant, designed to ferry crews to / from the Tiangong space station. The second is being developed expressly for lunar missions, offering an increased mission endurance capability. The first uncrewed orbital test-flight for the 14-tonne LEO version of Mengzhou is due to take place in 2026, the system having been going through progressive flight tests throughout the 2010 and early 2020s. If successful, it will pave the way for the vehicle to start operating on crewed flights to Tiangong alongside the current Shenzhou craft, which it will eventually replace.

Launch of the CZ-10A and Mengzhou test vehicles, February 11th, 2026. Credit: CCTV

On February 11th, 2026, a test article of the 21-tonne Mengzhou lunar vehicle completed a significant test atop the core reusable stage Long March 10 (Chinese designation CZ-10A) booster. This was a combined mission to test both the Mengzhou launch abort system (LAS) whilst under the rocket’s maximum dynamical pressure flight-regime, and also the booster’s ability to complete an ascent to its nominal stage separation altitude of 105 km, and then make a controlled descent and splashdown close to its recovery ship.

Following a successful launch, the combined vehicle climbed up to the period of “Max Q”, around 1 minute into a flight and wherein the maximum dynamic forces are being applied to the entire stack. The Mengzhou LAS successfully triggered, boosting the vehicle away from the Long March core stage at high speed. The Mengzhou capsule then separated from the LAS performed a splashdown downrange.

The Mengzhou LAS powers away from the CZ-10A corse stage, carrying the Mengzhou capsule with it, as would be required should a critical malfunction occur with the Long March 10 rocket. Credit: CCTV
The Long March 10 core stage then continued a powered ascent profile, performing engine shutdown at 105 km before simulating an upper stage separation followed by a post-separation manoeuvre. This saw the stage enter “glide” phase, using its aerodynamic fins to maintain its orientation.

During this “glide” phase (actually a controlled descent, the stage orienting itself to fall engines-first), the booster carried out an automated pre-cooling of its engines in readiness for re-use and raise the pressure within the propellant tanks to settle their contents in readiness for engine re-use.

Cameras on the booster capture the deployment of the SpaceX-like grid fins on the upper end of the stage, which help it to maintain the correct orientation during its descent back to Earth. Credit: CCTV

Roughly one minute before splashdown, several of the engines successfully re-lit in a braking manoeuvre to bleed off much of the stage’s velocity. These were quickly reduced to just 3 motors and then a single motor as the stage came to a near-hover before that motor shutdown allowed it to settle smoothly and vertically in the water just 200 metres abeam of its recovery ship.

As an aside, it is interesting to contrast reporting on this flight with media coverage of SpaceX Starship “integrated flight tests”. In the case of the latter, almost every flight has been reported as some kind of spectacular success, despite most of the flights blowing up, barely meeting their assigned goals, or simply re-treading ground already covered. By contrast, the Mengzhou / CZ-10A core stage test flight has largely been defined as a “small step” in China’s progress, with some emphasising the flight “not reaching orbit” – which it was never intended to do.

In reality, the entire flight was a complete success. Not only did it demonstrate the Mengzhou vehicle’s LAS fully capable of lifting the command module and crew clear of an ascending CZ-10A should the latter suffer a malfunction during the most dynamically active phase of it flight, it also further demonstrated the capsule’s parachute descent system and its ability to make a recoverable splashdown (Mengzhou is capable of both water and land-based touchdowns, being able to be equipped with either a floatation device or airbags prior to launch).

Another still from the video of the test flight, showing the booster entering the see and its proximity to the recovery vessel, just visible on the right of the image. Future tests will see the recovery vessel attempt to “catch” a returning booster directly using a “tether” system. Credit: CCTV

Further, the test demonstrated the CZ-10A core stage’s ability to undertake a return to Earth and splashdown (again, the booster is designed to both land on a recovery ship a-la Falcon 9 and New Glenn, or make a splashdown close enough to the recovery ship so it can then be recovered – direct returns to the recovery vessel will be a part of future tests). Finally, such was the accuracy of the guidance systems, the rocket splashed down just 200 metres from the recovery ship, as planned.

That said, it is true that all the core components of the crewed phase of the Chang’e project still have a way to go before China can send a crew to the Moon. But like the tortoise, their one-step-at-a-time / keep-it-simple approach could yet see them become the first nation to do so since 1972.

Why SpaceX is most likely “Shifting from Mars to the Moon”

Thirteen months ago, in an attempt to bolster his failing “Mars colony plan” (a totally unrealistic fever dream of sending a “Battlestar Galactica” scale feet of 1,000 Starship vehicles carrying 1 million people to Mars to establish a colony there), the SpaceX CEO declared “the Moon is a distraction” and Mars was the focus for his company.

Well, he’s had 13 months to forget all that, as on the weekend of February 7th and  8th, 2026, the self-styled man who “knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive on Earth” and yet cannot deliver on a single one of his manufacturing promises, declared that the Moon is now the focus of SpaceX’s endeavours, all as a part of a grand plan to “expand human consciousness and support his equally questionable idea of operating a 1-million strong constellation of Starlink satellites as a string of “data centres in space”. For good measure he mixes in terms such as “climbing the Kardashev scale” )the latter seems to be a particular reference point for so-called space entrepreneurs of late).

However, the real reason is liable to be far more mundane: the SpaceX CEO is again trying to justify the US $1.2 trillion valuation he and his fellow broad members arbitrarily awarded the company in January, and to justify such a figure in the face of an upcoming IPO whilst also possibly trying to further dazzle investors with shiny promises about orbital data centres and moon bases at a time when SpaceX has just “inherited”xAI and its cash burn-through of around US $1 billion a month.

The promise of a fully operational “Moon Base Alpha” (yes, once again we have a sci-fi trope to add gloss to an idea) in “10 years” will, undoubtedly go the same way as the more than a decade old claim that Tesla vehicles will be capable of full self driving “next year”; the statement that SpaceX would have Starship operational by 2022, and that Starship would fly around the Moon in 2023 and to Mars in 2024, err, 2026, err, 2028. That is to say, most likely never.

Martian Organics Cannot be Entirely Explained by Non-organic Processes

One of the major mysteries of Mars is the question of methane. It was first detected in more than faint trace amounts by the European Space Agency’s Mars Express mission in 2004. A decade later, NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover Curiosity,  detected methane spikes and  organic molecules whilst exploring the floor of Gale Crater. Then in 2019, the rover a massive spike as it explored “Teal Ridge”, a formation of bedrock and deposits on “Mount Sharp” (Aeolis Mons).

Alongside of this is the vexing discovery of organic elements on Mars. These and the methane seem to point a finger towards the idea that the planet may have once harboured life. However, as even proponents of this idea point out, both organics and methane can result from purely inorganic interactions. The tick is – how to determine which might be the case.

An artist’s rendering of Curiosity at work in Gale Crater. Credit: NASA

In March 2025, Curiosity detected small amounts of decane, undecane, and dodecane in a rock sample, which constituted the largest organic compounds found on Mars to date. These offered the potential to determine which option might be more likely to cause their existence – organics or inorganic chemical reactions. All three are hydrocarbons could be fragments of fatty acids, also known as carboxylic acid.

On Earth, carboxylic acid (aka fatty acids) is a natural by-product of life. Such acid can be found in animal tissues, nuts and seeds. In the case of animal tissues, carboxylic acid is predominantly formed by the breakdown of carbohydrates by the liver and found within adipose tissue, and the mammary glands. however, they can also be created by inorganic reactions – such as lightning striking chemically rich soils (or regolith), hydrothermal interactions and photochemical reactions between ultraviolet radiation and hydrocarbon-rich mixtures.

In order to try to determine whether the fatty acids discovered by Curiosity preserved in ancient mudstone are the result of organic processes or inorganic. Whilst limited with working only with data from the rover’s Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) spectrometer, the team sought to recreate the likely conditions on Mars some 80 million years ago – this being the amount of time the rock containing the acids would likely have been exposed to the surface atmosphere – and then work back from there to try to determine which would survive the longest: carboxylic acid produced by organic or inorganic means.

What they found was that organic mechanisms appear to leave far more in the way of organic remnants – such as decane, undecane, and dodecane – than the typical non-biological processes involved in forming carboxylic acid could produce. The team suggest that this might be because any organics responsible for the fatty acids might have been assisted by periodic impacts by carbonaceous meteorites, known to be sources of fatty acids formed in space.

A graphic shows the long-chain organic molecules decane, undecane, and dodecane, the largest organic molecules discovered on Mars to date. Credit: NASA/Dan Gallagher

However the team also urge caution: whilst their finding might move the needle further towards the idea that Mars once harboured life, they also clearly note that there is a need for greater study; Mars is a complex world, rich in complex interactions. As such, more and detailed study is required – preferably first-hand, through the obtaining of samples from Mars itself. Currently, and rather ironically, whilst NASA had planned to make samples from the Mars 2020 rover Perseverance available for return to Earth, these do not contain samples of a similar nature to those found by Curiosity.

More particularly, at the time Perseverance had launched to Mars with sample retrieval in mind, no-one had actually sorted out how such a retrieval might be achieved. As such, a series of highly complicated, overly expensive proposals were put forward, involving both US and European co-operation. Each of these were knocked down on the basis of complexity and escalating price – up to US $11 billion – or close to half of NASA’s overall budget – for such a mission was just too big an ask. Thus, despite more cost-effective proposals such has Rocket Lab’s (still complex) three-launch mission slated to cost a “mere” US $4 billion, the entire idea of a sample return mission has been cancelled as a result of NASA’s budget being tightened.

Space Sunday: hotel on the Moon by 2032? Probably not

A rendering of the GRU Space “version 2” hotel. A possibility, a pipedream or something else? Credit: GRU Space

The commercial space sector is in its infancy, and it is very easy to get caught up in the hype and promises that start-ups in the sector bring with them. At times, this is made worse by publications and media outlets swallowing every statement made by the CEO of SpaceX hook, line and sinker, without applying a modicum if critical thinking (yes, I’m looking at you, Ars  Technica, Space.com, Everyday Astronaut and Marcus House), encouraging publications to act more like PR mouthpieces than offering professional reportage.

Take, for example, Galactic Resource Utilisation (GRU) Space, and their claim that in by 2032, they will be operating the world’s first hotel on the Moon and will follow it up with a larger version before offering the same on Mars; framing the moves as the first necessary steps towards humanity becoming a galactic civilisation.

Exactly how serious this company – comprising two founders and a “consultant” – might be in its aims is unclear. But from the company name (GRU – to close to Felonius Gru, the man who planned to steal the Moon in 2010’s Despicable Me to be coincidence , and likely intended as a “har, har” joke) through to some of their wider claims, it’s hard to see this as little more than (at best) naïve thinking.

Certainly, the company’s website and “whitepaper” give rise to a wealth of questions, in terms of the reality of the idea of a hotel on the Moon, through the claims GRU Space make concerning it, to the claims made by the company’s founder. Given this, it’s hard to know where to start in analysing GRU Space and their entire “plan”; both the website and “whitepaper” are fill with gross over-simplifications and logical fallacies whilst at the same time simply skipping over key aspects and costs required of such an undertaking. Take for, example, the company’s 6-point “master plan”, the first 3 steps of which read:

1.       Build a hotel on the Moon. GRU solves off-world habitation.
2.       Build America’s first Moon base (road, mass drivers, warehouses, physical infrastructure on the Moon).
3.       Repeat on Mars.

Who’d have though establishing facilities on the Moon and Mars would be so “simple”. and that’s ignoring the arse-about face progression of steps 1 and 2 – build your hotel then build the infrastructure to support it? Is that not akin to building a housing estate and then providing the necessary road, power, water, sewage, etc., infrastructure?). I’m also going to ignore step 3 entirely, as it involves everything else I’ll cover in this article – with each one being of far greater magnitude.

Steps 4 through 6 of the “plan” are hardly better, drawing as they do on terms such as the Overton Window, and Kardashev Scale and mixing them with further logical fallacies in order to make a (very poor) case for investment whilst offering objectively misguided / misunderstood parallels together with dichotomies of thinking which further underscore the inherent naivety throughout the “whitepaper”.

GRU Space claims the first step in their endeavour will be a test module. Credit GRU Space

In terms of misguided parallels, the “whitepaper” draws on space tourism and tourism on Mount Everest as demonstrations of the potential for a hotel on the Moon to have mass appeal. In terms of the former, the company points to the rise of space tourism in the last 5 years, presenting a graph suggesting tourism far outweighs astronaut flight into space. However, the data presented ignores the fact that almost 50% of said tourists have participated in sub-orbital flights to the edge of space; a very different proposition to flying to orbit – or the Moon to the point where it has absolutely no bearing on the latter.

Turning to Mount Everest, while it is true that tourism has made up the lion’s share of ascent to the summit of Mount Everest, since the 1990s, less than 8,000 individuals have made the trip to summit of the mountain. Both sub-orbital flights to the edge of space and to the summit of Mount Everest aren’t cheap: the latter comes in at between US $50,000 and US $120,000 for a trip with “good” to “excellent” logistical support; whilst sub-orbital flights cost somewhere in the range of US $225,000-US $400,000. None of these price points are exactly accessible to a mass market. And they don’t come anyway close to the costs GRU Space is projecting. costs presented no sound financial foundation other than vague predications from the likes of the SpaceX CEO (and we all know how accurate those tend to be) .

By their own guessimates, GRU Space are planning to offer 5-night stays at their “Moon hotel” for an initial US $$27,083,335.00 per person, which they claim will fall to just under US $1 million. However you cut it, the first is several orders of magnitude greater than the cost of an 8-minute flight to the edge of space, and enough to make even the very wealthy baulk. The second, meanwhile operates on a false assumption, something I’ll come to in a moment. As such, it is hard to see GRU Space leverage the kind of real money they will need to make their plans a reality.

The GRU Space “version 1” hotel supposedly for 4 guests, an inflatable structure surrounded by shaped regolith. Credit: GRU Space

In terms of cost to customers, the “whitepaper” glosses over / ignores a lot. First, the suggestion they will be using either the Starship HLS or Blue Origin Blue Moon Mark 2 lunar landers – both of which, it is not unfair to say, will have other priorities (assuming the SpaceX HLS actually reaches a point where it can enter service), making their use in a parallel commercial venture somewhat questionable. More to the point: these vehicles will require periodic refuelling to remain operational – at an unknown cost the “whitepaper” fails to mention. More than that, both vehicles require refuelling in order to reach the Moon; no mention of this fact in made in the GRU Space document or who will pay for it.

Given that SpaceX estimate on-orbit refuelling of a Moon-bound Starship will be on the order of US $180 million – that’s a big chunk of missing data – US $45 million per seat in the case of tourists heading for the “version 1” hotel (designed to house  guests), if the cost is to be passed on, which is not mentioned either; neither is how the cost per flight be met if GRU Space is to somehow “absorb” it. There are also other issues around the use of Starship (e.g. whether or not the HLS version will ever be used for anything beyond two Artemis missions and then junked; whether the “standard” version of Starship will ever be rated to launch humans – eve the HLS version will not be rated for crew launches from Earth and so on). however, I’ll do you a favour a pass on waffling on about them.

Of course, Starship is not the only player in town. There’s Blue Origin, a company far more likely at this point in time to deliver humans to the surface of the Moon than SpaceX. But even they require on-orbit and lunar refuelling options, again increasing the overall cost per guest at a GRU Space hotel.

Similarly, the idea that there will be some kind of “10 fold” decrease” in the cost of launching humans into space, making flights to the 12-person “version 2” of the hotel so much cheaper, actually stand up to scrutiny. Whilst Starship has the potential to reduce the cost of launching inanimate payloads to orbit, this is only if it can operate at scale – multiple launches per day. Frankly, the commercial market as a whole is a long way from requiring that kind of general launch cadence, making the idea questionable.

More to the point, whilst SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilo of launching payloads to orbit on Falcon 9, the cost to do the same with humans – $225 million per 4-person launch – has not shifted downwards at all since 2019, despite the 5-fold increase in the Crew Dragon fleet.. This is because launching humans requires a lot of specialised ground and vehicle systems; thus SpaceX look to reductions in servicing and turning around Falcon 9 booster as a means to offset the overheads involved in servicing and refurbishing individual Crew Dragon craft, not as a means to reduce costs to users. There is absolutely no reason to suspect this would not also be the case with and future human rated version of Starship, were it to appear.

Nor does the failure to accurately present costs end there. no mention is made as to:

  • The cost of what would likely be single-use spacesuits for the hotel guests (which could be anywhere from US $10 million to US $228 million, depending on the suit type and manufacturer).
  • The cost of developing and deploying suitable life support systems and their back-up for each hotel; the implementation of suitable power generation and storage capabilities and the parallel need for thermal regulation systems.
  • The costs involved in ensuring adequate on-sit medical facilities.
  • The cost (or number) of staff for each version of the hotel (or in providing them with accommodation, life support, food, etc.).

Perhaps the most glaring example of the naivety present in the “whitepaper” is the claim that GRU Space can recoup all of the outlay involved in establishing the 4-person hotel  – liable to realistically be in excess of at least US $1 billion – by flying just 12 guests to the hotel in the first year.

The only way this potentially comes into the vicinity of being a realistic figure is if the costs of all the essentials mentioned above – power, life support, etc – are ignored, and you look at the claim sideways and in a mirror. With one eye closed and the other squinting, whilst simultaneously reciting Hamlet’s soliloquy in full.

Another rendering of GRU’s “version 2” hotel. Credit: GRU Space

In terms of logical fallacies with the “whitepaper”, these are literally manifold-  places an many as 5 in single statements. I’m not going to list all of them here. But to provide a further example: the whitepaper infers that because NASA requires in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) for the Artemis Moon base, GRU Space is the only logical choice for providing those capabilities because they are “unique”. In reality, there are multiple companies and universities involved in ISRU technology development, all of whom are far better established than a two-man start-up.

There is much more within the “whitepaper” that can, and should be challenged – and which should have been challenged by space media outlets rather than them simply regurgitating the PR without thought or research but no. Like the equally questionable Voyager Station proposal claiming a company will have a spinning space station (to give it artificial gravity) accepting up to 280 guests (at $1.2 million a pop) operating from 2027 – the PR is presented as reportage that has a Field of Dreams inevitability, with not a single question about where the “tens of billions” required to build the station will come from (indeed, as of writing, Above Space has raised exactly … US $4.8 million over 4 years, and much of the dedicated space media which helped hype the idea seem to have quietly brushed it to one side.

As such, I admit to a certain curiosity as to where GRU Space will be in the hype cycle a year from now. As it is, it would appear that two companies originally cited as “backers” for the project have requested their names be removed from the company’s website: Anduril Space and … SpaceX.  If nothing else, having a company run by the king of over-promising and under-delivering ask for its name to be removed from your  website can’t really be a good sign.

Artemis 2 Update

The Artemis 2 Orion vehicle within its payload fairings and Launch Abort System at the top of the Space Launch System rocket on LC-39B, Kennedy Space Centre during the wet dress rehearsal. Credit: NASA

As per my previous Space Sunday article, Sunday, February 8th, 2026 was targeted as the launch date for the launch of the crewed Artemis 2 mission around the Moon and back.

At that time of that article, NASA was running the mission’s massive Space Launch System rocket through a wet dress rehearsal  (WDR) – a final pre-launch test designed to ensure all ground systems  – including those responsible for loading the vehicle’s core tanks with propellants were all operating correctly and to uncover any niggles in processing, etc. that could be ironed-out before an actual launch.

During the preparations for Artemis 1 in 2022, a similar WDR caused NASA much embarrassment and rolling of the mission’s launch vehicle back and forth between the launch pad and the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Centre (exacerbated by bad weather) due to a series of issues relating to the feeds providing propellants and vital gases to the rocket, including the liquid hydrogen propellant feed located on the mobile launch platform at the base of the rocket.

These issues resulted in significant changes and updates to the umbilical system in the years following Artemis 1, and the Artemis 2 WDR was the first opportunity to test them in sequence. These updates name some at NASA take a bullish attitude towards the WDR and the updates made to the launch systems.

However, as propellant loading progressed, sensors within the umbilical propellant feed system reported a helium leak similar to that seen with Artemis 1, possibly as a result of the neighbouring hydrogen umbilical super cooling the seals on the helium feed, causing them to contract and allow helium to escape. The countdown was paused to allow the helium seals to warm up and reset.

This appeared to work, and the countdown reached  T -5:15. at this point the Ground Launch Sequencer – a system designed to monitor all aspects of the vehicle’s preparations ad make sure everything proceeds in the correct sequence – intervened and shut down the test when it registered multiple sensors reporting a sudden and sustained spike in hydrogen leaking from the umbilical system – much as happened with the Artemis 1 WDR.

As a result, the the February launch opportunities were closed out, and operations moved to the early March launch opportunity to allow the problems with the hydrogen feed to be investigated. This means Artemis 2 will not launch until March 7th, earliest, and will likely be preceded by a further WDR. The leaks and delay are liable to cause further negative feedback towards SLS / Orion – and cause NASA a certain degree of embarrassment.

Artemis 2 on the pad at Kennedy Space Centre. Credit: Craig Bailey. Florida Today

In the meantime, the delay clears Crew 12 for a February 11th launch to the ISS.

Space Sunday: space debris and atmospheric damage + some updates

A European Space Agency Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) burns-up in the upper atmosphere following its departure from the International Space Station (ISS). Debris from this type of re-entry burn-up is now of growing concern due it its potential impact on the atmosphere and climate change. Credit: ESA

I’ve written about the issues of space debris on numerous occasions in these pages (for example, see: Space Sunday: debris and the Kessler syndrome; more Artemis or Space Sunday: Debris, Artemis delays, SpaceX Plans). Most of these pieces have highlighted the growing crowded nature of space immediately beyond our planet’s main atmosphere, the increasing risk of vehicle-to-vehicle collisions and the potential for a Kessler syndrome event.

However, there is another aspect of the increasing frequency of space launches and the number of satellites and debris re-entering the atmosphere: pollution and an increase in global warming. This is something I covered in brief back in October 2024, and it is becoming a matter of growing concern.

Currently, there are 14,300 active satellites orbiting Earth (January 2026), compared to just 871 20 years ago. Some 64.3% of these satellites belong to one company: SpaceX, in the form of Starlink satellites. Launches of these commenced in 2019, with each satellite intended to operate between 5 and 7 years. However, because of their relative cheapness, combined with advances in technology and the need for greater capabilities means than since August 2025, SpaceX has been “divesting” itself of initial  generations of their Starlink satellites within their anticipated lifespan at a rate to match the continued use of newer satellites, freeing up orbital “slots” for the newer satellites.

As a result, SpaceX is now responsible for over 40% of satellite re-entries into the atmosphere, equating to a net of over half a tonne of pollutants – notably much of it aluminium oxide and carbonates – being dumped into the upper atmosphere a day, all of which contributes to the greenhouse effect within the upper atmosphere.

These particulates drift down into the stratosphere where monitoring is showing they are having some disturbing interactions with everything from the ozone layer through to weather patterns.

We’re really changing the composition of the stratosphere into a state that we’ve never seen before, much of it negative. We really don’t understand many of the impacts that can result from this. The rush to space risks disrupting the global climate system and further depleting the ozone layer, which shields all living things from DNA-destroying ultraviolet radiation.

– John Dykema, applied physicist at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard

A 2023 axonometric view of Earth showing the space debris situation in different kinds of orbits around Earth. Credit: Pablo Carlos Budassi

In a degree of fairness to SpaceX – who will continue to dominate the issue of re-entry pollutants if their request to deploy a further 15,000 Starlink units is approved – they are not the only contributor. One Web, Amazon, Blue Origin and China via their Qianfan constellation, all stand to add to the problem – if on something of a smaller scale (Amazon and Blue Origin, for example, only plan to operate a total of 8,400 satellites, total). Further, NASA itself is a contributor: the solid rocket boosters used by the space shuttle and now the Space Launch System have been and are major depositors of aluminium and aluminium oxides in the upper atmosphere.

Nor does it end there. The vehicles used to launch these satellites are a contributing factor, whether semi-reusable or expendable. They add exhaust gases – often heavy in carbonates – into the atmosphere, as well as continuing to the dispersion of pollutants in the upper reaches of the atmosphere as upper stages re-enter and burn up.

Carbonates and things like aluminium oxides are of particular concern because of their known impact on both greenhouse gas trapping and in the destruction of the ozone layer. A further factor here is that research suggests that interactions between aluminium oxide and solar radiation in the upper atmosphere can result in the production of chlorine in a highly reactive form, potentially further increasing ozone loss in the atmosphere.

We’re not only putting thermal energy into the Earth’s climate system, but we’re putting it in new places. We don’t really understand the implications of changing stratospheric circulation. It could cause storm tracks to move. Maybe it could shift climate zones, or possibly be a new source of droughts and floods. Chlorine is one of the key actors in the ozone hole. If you add a new surface that converts existing chlorine into reactive and free radical forms, that will also promote ozone loss. Not yet enough to create a new ozone hole, but it can slow the recovery that began after the 1987 Montreal Protocol phased out chlorofluorocarbons.

– John Dykema, applied physicist at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard

There is something of a complex balance in all of this. We need the capabilities an orbital infrastructure can provide – communications, monitoring, Earth and weather observation, etc.,  – but we also need to be aware of the potential for debilitating the natural protections we need from our atmosphere together with the potential for pollutants to further accelerate human-driven climate change beyond the ability of the planet to correct.

This is further complicated by the inevitable friction between commercial / corporate need  – and much of modern space development is squarely in the corporate domain, where income and revenue are the dominant forces – and governmental oversight / policy making and enforcement. As such, how and when policy makers might act is also subject to some complexity, although many in the scientific community are becoming increasingly of the opinion that action is required sooner rather than later, and preferably on a united front.

Changes to stratospheric circulation may ultimately prove more consequential than the additional ozone loss, because the outcomes are so uncertain and potentially far-reaching. For the moment, many questions are not really amenable to straightforward, linear analysis. The ozone loss is significant, and we’re putting so much stuff up there that it could grow in ways that are not proportional to what has thus far been seen. The question is whether policymakers will act on those concerns before the invisible wake of our spacefaring ambitions becomes impossible to ignore.

– John Dykema, applied physicist at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard

Brief Updates

Artemis 2 Launch targets February 8th As Earliest Opportunity

NASA has announced a new earliest launch target date for Artemis 2: Sunday, February 8th, 2026, some two days later than the initial earliest launch date target.

The decision to push the target date back was taken after the planned wet dress rehearsal (WDR) for the launch – which sees all aspects of a vehicle launch tested right up to the point of engine ignition – was postponed due to extremely cold weather moving in over the Kennedy Space Centre which could have impacted accurate data gathering on the 49-hour test, which had been slated to commence on January 29th, 2026.

The Artemis 2 Space Launch System rocket on the pad at Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Centre, January 31st, 2026. Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky.

The WDR was instead reset for the period of February 1st through 3rd, 2026, with the countdown clock to the start of testing resuming at 01:13 UTC on February 1st. It will run through to the opening of a simulated launch window for 02:00 UTC on February 2nd. This latter part of the test will see the propellant loading system – which exhibited issues during preparations for the 2022 Artemis 1 launch – put through its paces to confirm it is ready for an actual launch.

As a thorough testing of all ground  and vehicle systems, and a full rehearsal for all teams involved in a launch, the WDR is the last major step in clearing the SLS and Artemis 2 for it mission around the Moon. It will officially terminate as the simulated launch window opens, some 10 seconds before engine ignition – but data gathering will continue through until February 3rd as the rocket is de-tanked of propellants and made safe. Then will come a data analysis and test review.

The actual crew of Artemis 2 are not participating in the test, but will be observing / monitoring elements of the WDR as it progresses. NASA has a livestream of the pad as the WDR progresses, and a separate stream will be opened during the propellant loading phases of the test.

The Artemis 2 crew: Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen, and NASA astronauts Victor Glover (vehicle pilot), Reid Wiseman (mission Commander) and Christine Koch. Credit: NASA

The push back to February 8th, means that NASA effectively has a 3-day opportunity through until February 11th (inclusive) in which to launch the mission before the current window closes. After that, the mission will have to wait for the March launch window to open.

NASA / SpaceX Crew 12 Looks to February 11th Launch

As NASA primarily focuses on Artemis 2, a second crewed launch is being lined up on the taxiway (so to speak) ready to follow the SLS into space – or possibly launch ahead of it.

NASA and SpaceX have confirmed they are looking at February 11th, 2026 as a potential launch date for the Crew 12 mission to the International Space Station (ISS). The mission will lift-off from Kennedy Space Centre’s launch Complex 39A (LC-39A), just a few kilometres away from the SLS at LC-39B, carrying NASA astronauts  Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, together with ESA astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev aboard the SpaceX Crew Dragon Freedom.

The Expedition 74/75 / SpaceX Crew 12 personnel, l to r: Roscosmos cosmonaut Andrei Fedyaev, NASA astronauts Jack Hathaway (vehicle pilot) and Jessica Meir (crew commander), and ESA astronaut Sophie Adenot. Image credit: SpaceX.

Officially classified as NASA Crew Expedition 74/75, the four will bring the ISS back up to it nominal crew numbers following the medical evacuation which saw the Crew 11 astronauts make an early return to Earth, as I’ve covered in recent Space Sunday articles.

The preparations for Crew 12’s launch means that in the coming days there will be two rockets on the pads at Kennedy’s Launch Complex 39, each proceeding along its own route to launch. As to which goes first, this depends primarily on how the Artemis 2 / SLS launch preparations go.  If it leaves the pad between February 8th and February 10th as planned, then there is nothing hindering Crew 12 lifting-off atop their Falcon 9 booster. However, any push-back to February 11th would likely see Crew 12 delayed until February 12th at the earliest. Conversely, if Artemis 2 is delayed until the March launch opportunity, this immediately clears the way for Crew 12 to proceed towards a February 11th lift-off, with both February 12th and 13th also available.

Habitability of Europa Takes Another Blow

In my previous Space Sunday article, I covered recent studies relating to the potential for Jupiter’s icy moon Europa to harbour life (see: Space Sunday: examining Europa and “The Eye of Sauron”). The studies in question were mixed: one contending that conditions on Europa might lean towards life being present within its deep water ocean, the other being more sceptical about the sea floor conditions required to support life (e.g. the presence of hydrothermal vents).

Now a further study has been published, and it also suggests the chances of life existing in Europa’s ocean are at best thin.

One of the core issues with Europa has been knowing just how thick its ice shell actually is. Some have suggested it could be as little as 2 kilometres thick, whilst others have stated it could be as deep as 30km.

Understanding the thickness of the moon’s ice crust is crucial, as it helps define whether or not processes seen to be at work on the Moon are sufficient enough to have an impact on what might be happening within any liquid water oceans under the ice.

If the ice crust is thin – say a handful of kilometres or less – then activities like subduction within the ice sheets have a good chance of carrying minerals and nutrients created by the interaction between brines in Europa’s surface ice down into the ocean below, where they might help support life processes. similarly, transport mechanisms within the ice could carry oxygen generated as a result of surface interactions down through the ice and into the waters below. If the ice is too thick, then there is a good chance such processes grind to a halt long before they break through the ice crust into the waters below, thus starving them of nutrients, chemicals and gases.

An analysis of data gathered by NASA’s Juno mission as it loops its way around Jupiter and making periodic fly-bys of Europa now suggests that the primary ice crust of Europa is potentially some 28-29 kilometres thick. That’s not good news for the moon’s potential habitability because, as noted it would severely hamper any movement of minerals and nutrients down through the moon’s ice and into the waters below. However, the researchers do note that this doesn’t mean such elements could not reach the waters below, but rather they would take a lot longer to do so, but rather their ability to support any life processes within Europa’s waters would be greatly diminished.

A study of data gathered by NASA’s Juno mission spacecraft suggests the thickness of Europa’s ice crust might be enough – 28-20 km – to severely limit the ability of transport mechanisms and “crustal delamination” (see: Space Sunday: examining Europa and “The Eye of Sauron”) to transfer nutrients, chemicals, gases and minerals formed on the moon’s surface down to the liquid water ocean where they might help life processes in the water. Image credit: NASA

An unknown complication here is he state of the ice towards the bottom of the crust. Is it solid all the way through, or does it become more slush-like as it nears the water boundary layer, warmed by the heat of Europa’s mantle as it radiates outward through the ocean? If it is more slush-like, even if only for around 5 kilometres, this might aid transport mechanisms carrying nutrients, minerals, chemicals and oxygen down into the ocean. Conversely, if the ice is solid and there is a further 3-5 km thick layer of icy slush forming the boundary between it and liquid water, then it will act as a further impediment to these transport mechanisms being able to transfer material to the liquid water ocean.

As a result of this study, and the two noted in my previous Space Sunday article, eyes are now definitely turning towards NASA’s Europa Clipper, due to arrive in orbit around Jupiter in 2030, and ESA’s Juice mission, due to arrive in 2031, in the hope that they will be able to provide more detailed answers to conditions on and under Europa’s ice.

Space Sunday: examining Europa and “The Eye of Sauron”

A true colour image of Europa, captured by NASA’s Juno spacecraft during its 45th passage around Jupiter (Perijove 45), October 2023. Credit: NASA/JPL

One of the most fascinating places in the entire solar system is Europa, the second innermost of the four Galilean moons of Jupiter, and the smallest – although “smallest” here being a relative term, Europa (diameter around 3,100 km) being only very slightly smaller in size than our own Moon (diameter approx 3,475 km).

As I’ve explained in past Space Sunday pieces, Europa is subject to similar gravitational flexing as seen on Io, the innermost of the four Galilean moons. This flexing, caused by the unequal push-pull of Jupiter’s immense gravity on one side and the unequal yet effectively combined gravitational pull of the other three Galilean moons on the other, has marked Io as the most volcanically active body in the solar system with upwards of 400 active volcanoes marking its surface.

A rendering of Europa’s interior, as the modern consensus of opinion see it: a thin (10-30 km) outer crust with a water ocean approx 100 km deep, either fully liquid or a mix of liquid water and semi-frozen ice and slush, and a large rocky mantle heated by an iron core due to gravitational flexing. Credit: Kelvinsong

In Europa’s case, the common consensus has been that this flexing is sufficient to cause its core to stretch and contract, generating heat which keeps the waters trapped under the icy crust in a largely liquid state. It has also been hypothesised that this flexing could give rise to ocean floor hydrothermal vents and fumaroles, spewing heat, chemicals and minerals into the ocean; elements which might have kick-started life within Europa’s waters, much as we have seen around similar deep ocean hydrothermal vents here on Earth.

However, there are two stumbling blocks with these ideas. The first is whether or not there is sufficient energy being generated deep within Europa needed to drive a tectonic-like motion in the mantle and cause hydrothermal venting. The second is that, even with the minerals and chemicals blasted out of deep ocean fumaroles here on Earth, our oceans are rich in nutrients vital for life generated by things like the constant death and decay of marine life, the interaction of solar radiation with salts and other minerals within the upper reaches of our oceans, etc., and which are carried down to the depths by the natural cycles present within our oceans and help drive the life processes fund around deep water fumaroles.

A rendering showing the tidal heating processes believed to be at work in Europa, allowing it to have a liquid water ocean and – possibly – hydrothermal vents. Credit: NASA/JPL

While it is known that Europa has interactions between the intense radiations given off by Jupiter and the salts and minerals in its surface ice (giving rise to the discolouration seen across much of the moon) which likely give rise to chemicals and nutrients, how these might get down through the ice into the ocean below remains a unclear – although one theory suggests subduction might be a suitable mechanism.

A recently published study by geophysicists at Washington State University and Virginia Tech offers a more novel idea: crustal delamination. This is a geological process long known on Earth whereby our planet’s tectonic movement gradually “squeezes” a zone of the planet’s crust, chemically densifying it until it detaches from the crust and sinks into the mantle.

Diagram illustrating the theorised model of a possible avenue toward a form of crustal delamination in a planetary ice shell like Europa’s. Credit: The Planetary Science Journal (2026). DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/ae2b6f

Europa’s icy crust is in a degree of motion thanks to the aforementioned flexing. As noted above, this gives rise to the potential of subduction pushing “plates” of ice under others. Whether or not this is strong enough to push nutrient-laden ice down to the level of the ocean is unclear. However WSU / Virginia Tech study suggests the flexing, breaking and reforming of Europa’s surface ice could result in a unique kind of “crustal delamination”, with their model suggesting it could allow pockets of mineral and nutrient rich ice to “burrow” down to the warm liquid ocean, melt and release their nutrients into Europa’s supposed thermal currents.

If correct,  this could allow Europa to provide the kind of nutrients any life down on its ocean floor. What’s more, it’s a theory that works within the subduction model, allowing the two to work together in the supply of nutrients and chemicals into Europa’s waters.

The “crustal delamination” theory sits will with other theories for ice movement on Europa, such as subduction. Credit: NASA

All of which bodes well for the theory that Europa may be an abode for life. However, another study authored by a team of leading planetary science experts concludes that suggests that whilst the competing gravitational forces at work on Europa might be sufficient to cause the moon to flex, but are insufficient to cause any kind of hydrothermal venting on the moon’s ocean floor.

If we could explore that ocean with a remote-control submarine, we predict we wouldn’t see any new fractures, active volcanoes, or plumes of hot water on the seafloor. Geologically, there’s not a lot happening down there. Everything would be quiet.

– Paul Byrne, an associate professor of Earth, environmental, and planetary sciences

This conclusion was reached after taking data on Europa’s size, the likely make-up of its deep core and surrounding mantle, its orbit, and on the likely gravitational forces at work on the moon. In particular, the study also contrasted the orbit of Io with that of Europa, and the role it plays in Io’s extreme volcanism.

Io occupies something of an erratic orbit and this increases the amount of influence gravities of Jupiter and the other three Galilean Moons have on it. But Europa’s orbit is closer to circular, and less prone to gravitational extremes, thus reducing the overall amount of flexing the moon experiences, greatly reducing the likelihood of any internal heating driving the kind of “tectonic”-like shifts in Europa’s mantle needed for venting to occur.

Europa likely has some tidal heating, which is why it’s not completely frozen. And it may have had a lot more heating in the distant past. But we don’t see any volcanoes shooting out of the ice today like we see on Io, and our calculations suggest that the tides aren’t strong enough to drive any sort of significant geologic activity at the seafloor.

– Paul Byrne, an associate professor of Earth, environmental, and planetary sciences

The key point here is that whilst a form of crustal delamination may well be at work alongside subduction to deliver vital nutrients for life deep into the waters of Europa’s oceans, without the hydrothermal venting acting as a direct energy and chemical / mineral source required to give that life a kick-start, the chances are, those nutrients aren’t really helping anything.

All of which make the discoveries NASA’s Europa Clipper and ESA’s Juice mission might make when they reach the Jovian system in the 2030s and start probing Europa’s secrets in great detail, all the more intriguing.

Blue Origin Confirm NG-3 Mission; Rocket Lab Suffer Neutron Setback

Two missions provisionally set for launch in the first quarter of 2026 received updates both good and bad (and a little curious in the case of one) this week.

The good / curious update came from Blue Origin with the confirmation of the next flight of their New Glenn heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV). In it, the company indicated they are on course to launch New Glenn on its third flight towards the end of February 2026, and that it will utilise the core booster stage called Never Tell Me The Odds, used in the second flight of New Glenn – NG-2 – which set NASA’s twin ESCApades satellites on their way to Mars. Thus, the mission will be the first to see the re-use of a New Glenn core stage.

Never Tell Me The Odds, the New Glenn core stage used for the NG-2 launch in November 2025, sitting on the landing vessel Jacklyn following its flight in that mission. It is now set to be re-used in the NG-3 launch, currently targeted for late February 2026. Credit: Blue Origin

The curious element of the announcement lay in the payload for the mission – NG-3. Following NG-2, Blue Origin had indicated they would be looking to launch their Blue Moon Pathfinder mission to the Moon on NG-3, also reusing Never Tell Me The Odds in the process. However, this mission has now been moved back in the company’s launch manifest and, at the time of writing, has no indicated launch period other than “2026”. Instead, NG-3 will launch a 6.1 tonne Bluebird communications satellite to low Earth orbit (LEO) on behalf of AST SpaceMobile, helping to expand that company’s cellular broadband constellation.

Blue Origin has not stated any reason for the payload swap or whether it is due to requiring more time to prepare the Blue Moon demonstrator lander or not. It might be that the company needs more time in preparing Blue Moon, or it might be because they’d rather launch that mission using a new core booster; or it might be because they want to gather more data on vehicle performance carrying heavier payloads. The first two launches carried around 2-3 tonnes and just over a ton respectively. Blue Moon masses almost 22 tonnes, a sizeable jump, whereas Bluebird is a more modest increment.

Meanwhile, Rocket Labs suffered a setback which spells the end of their hopes to debut their Neutron rocket in the first quarter of 2026 – and which might delay the vehicle’s maiden flight by as much as a year.

Neutron is intended to be a 2-stage, partially-reusable medium lift launch vehicle (MLLV) in roughly the same class as ULA’s Vulcan-Centaur and SpaceX’s Falcon 9. However, it is of a highly innovative design, the second stage of the vehicle and its payload being carried aloft inside the first stage, within a set of clamshell payload fairings the company calls the “hungry hippo”. These open once the rocket has cleared the Earth’s denser atmosphere so the payload and its motor stage can be released, the core stage then returning to land on a floating platform.

A video showing the 2025 ground testing of Neutron’s aerodynamic fins, which will be used in the core stage’s descent to a landing barge touchdown, and the “Hungry Hippo” payload fairing forming the nose of the stage 

The first Neutron vehicle (sans its upper stage and payload) arrived on the pad at rocket Lab’s launch facilities at the Mid-Atlantic Region Spaceport (MARS) on the Virginia coast earlier in January. On January 21st, the vehicle was undergoing a hydrostatic pressure trial intended to validate structural integrity and safety margins so as to ensure a successful launch.  However, during the test, the vehicle’s main propellant tank buckled and then ruptured, effectively writing off the rocket.

Rocket Lab will now need time to analyse precisely what went wrong, why the propellant tank gave way and whether any significant structural alterations need to be made to it prior to any launch attempt being made.

A rendering of Rocket Lab’s Neutron and how it will work. Credit: Tony Bella

Gazing into the “Eye of Sauron”

Our Sun will one day die. In doing so, its hydrogen depleted, it will swell in size as it struggles to consume progressively heavier elements within itself before it collapses once more, shedding its outer layers into what we call a planetary nebula. It’s not a unique end for a main sequence star such as the Sun, but it can be a beautiful one when viewed from afar and through the eyeglass of time.

One such planetary nebula is that of NGC 7293 / Caldwell 63, commonly referred to as the Helix Nebula. Located some 650 light years away within the constellation of Aquarius as seen from Earth, it is one of the closest bright planetary nebulae to our solar system.

A nine-orbit, true colour image of the Helix Nebula captured by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) revealing the structure of of nebula. Credit: NASA / ESA / STScl

Formed by an intermediate mass star thought to be similar to the Sun, the Nebula takes its name by the fact that the outer layers  look – from our perspective, at least – like a helix. Some 2.9 light years across its widest axis, the nebula features the stellar core of the star which created it near its centre, a core so energetic as it collapses towards becoming a white dwarf it blew off, it causes the layers of gas and dust to brightly fluoresce.

This combination of shape and fluorescing colours has given the nebula two additional informal names:  The Eye of God, and more latterly and partially in fun in the wake of the Lord of the Rings films, The Eye of Sauron. The nebula was perhaps first made famous by a nine-orbit campaign using the Hubble Space Telescope to capture true-colour images of it in 2004, resulting in a stunning (at the time) composite image of the nebula.

In 2007, the Spitzer Space Telescope captured the Helix Nebula in the infrared wavelengths, revealing much of the complex structure of the nebula’s gas and dust layering, with the core remnants of the star forming it clearly visible and blood red taking to the infrared, giving it the appearance of an eye.

An nfrared false-colour image of the Helix Nebula from the Spitzer Space Telescope. The white dwarf at the heart of the nebula appears red in this image, suggesting a malevolent eye. Image Credit: NASA/JPL

More recently, both the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO) VISTA (Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy) wide-angle telescope located high in the Atacama Desert of Chile, and NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) 1.5 million km out in space, have caught the full majesty of the Helix Nebula in comparative detail.

In particular, the JWST images reveal much of the intricate nature of the layers of gas and dust within the nebula. These include clear signs of how the powerful pulses of stellar wind from the dying star are forcing most of the gases and dust in the layers to be pushed away from the core, with globular-like knots and strands of denser material resisting the push, forming what is called cometary knots, due to their resemblance to comets and their tails. However, these “comets” tend to be wider than the planetary core of our solar system!

Left: a true-colour, high-resolution of the Helix Nebula captured by ESO’s VISTA The image of the Helix Nebula on the left is from the ESO’s VISTA telescope in Chile. Right: an image from JWST offering detail on a portion of the Nebula. Credits: ESO/VISTA / NASA / ESA / STScI, J. Emerson (ESO)

JWST’s images also reveal the blue heat of stars beyond the nebula diffracted into beautiful star-like forms by the intervening (and invisible) gas and dust. VISTA, meanwhile helps put the JWST images into perspective within the Nebula as a whole. They also demonstrate how it was likely Helix was result of three different outbursts – or epochs – from the star.

The innermost of these epochs is obviously the youngest and more intact and more exposed to the outflow of stellar winds from the star’s remnants, whilst the outermost is interacting with the interstellar medium, with evidence of shockwaves, ripples, and a general “flattening” of the expanding clouds as it collides with the increasingly denser gas within the interstellar medium. This outermost layer was likely formed about 15,000-20,000 years ago, with the innermost about 10,000-12,000 years old.

A close-up image from JWST showing the “cometary knots”, the majority likely larger than the planetary core of our solar system, formed by dense clusters of gas resisting the outward push of solar winds from the dying star. A star is shown in blue, indicating its heat, the light from it undergoing diffraction by the non-visible dust and gas of the nebula. Credit: NASA / ESA / STScl

In time – around 30-50,000 years from now – the Helix Nebula will vanish as it merges into the interstellar medium and its star collapses into a quiescent white dwarf. But for now it continues to turn its eye upon us, gazing down as an entrancing ring of beauty, visible to professional and amateur astronomers alike.

Space Sunday: Crew 11 comes home; Artemis 2 rolls out

The Crew-11 astronauts deboarding their NASA flight to Ellington Field, Houston on January 16th, 2026. Left to right: NASA astronauts Mike Fincke and Zena Cardman; Japan’s Kimya Yui and cosmonaut Oleg Platonov. Credit: NASA/Robert Markowitz

NASA’s ISS Expedition 73/74 crew, flying as SpaceX Crew 11, have made a safe and successful return to Earth following their medical evacuation from the space station.

As I reported in my previous Space Sunday piece, the decision to evacuate the entire 4-person crew, comprising NASA astronauts Zena Maria Cardman and Edward Michael “Mike” Fincke, together with Kimiya Yui of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Russian cosmonaut Oleg Platonov, was made after one of the four suffered an unspecified medical issue. Details as to who has experienced the issue and what form it takes still have not been revealed – although when initially discussing bringing the crew back to Earth roughly a month ahead of their planned end-of-mission return, the agency did make it clear the matter was not the result of an injury.

NASA also made clear the move to bring the crew home was in no way an emergency evacuation – had it been so, there were options available to return the crew a lot sooner. Instead, the evacuation was planned so that the affected crew member could have their situation properly diagnosed on Earth, whilst allowing time for the combined crew on the ISS to wrap-up as much as possible with outstanding work related to their joint time on the station and to allow Fincke, as the current station commander, to hand-over to cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov, who together with Sergey Mikayev and  US astronaut Christopher Williams will continue aboard the station, where they will at some point in the next month be joined by the Crew 12 team from NASA.

Crew Dragon Endeavour, with her docking hatch open, backs gently away from the ISS, January 14th, 2026. Credit: NASA

The crew began prepping for their departure in the evening (UTC) of Wednesday, January 14th, when after a round of goodbyes to the three remaining on the ISS and then changing into the SpaceX pressure suits, the four Crew 11 personnel boarded Crew Dragon Endeavour, prior to the hatches between the spacecraft and station being closed-out and final checks run on the vehicle’s status in readiness for departure.

Following this, all four of the crew ran through a series of leak checks on their suits to ensure all connections with the Dragon’s life support systems were working, and Cardman – acting as the Crew 11 Mission commander and the experienced Fincke as the Crew 11 vehicle pilot – completed all pre-flight and power checks.

Captured via a high altitude observation aircraft, Endeavour passed into the denser atmosphere surrounded by a plasma cone of super-heated molecules and trailing a fiery tail behind her. Credit: NASA

Undocking occurred at 22:20 UTC, slightly later than planned, Fincke guiding the spacecraft smoothly and safely away from the station until Endeavour moved through the nominal 400-metre diameter and carefully monitored  “keep out sphere” surrounding the ISS. This “sphere” represents the closest any vehicle can come to the ISS whilst operating entirely independently from the station – vehicles can only move closer whilst engaged in actual docking manoeuvres.

Crossing the sphere’s outer boundary some 20 minutes later, Endeavour entered the “approach / departure ellipsoid” – a zone extending away from the ISS denoting, as the name suggests, the area of space along which vehicles can approach / depart the station and make a safe manoeuvres away should anything happen during an initial docking approach.

By 22:52 UCT, some 30 minutes after initial undocking, Endeavour transitioned away from the ISS and into its own orbit around the Earth, intended to carry to a position where it could commence it re-entry manoeuvres and make a targeted splashdown off the coast of California. The main 13.5-minute de-orbit burn was initiated at 07:53 UTC on January 15th, as Endeavour passed over the Indian Ocean and  Indonesia. From here, it passed over the Pacific reaching re-entry interface with the denser atmosphere at 08:31 UTC. At this point communications were lost – as expected – for around 7 minutes as the vehicle lay surrounded by super-heated plasma generated by the friction of its passage against the denser atmosphere, prior to being re-gained at 08:37 UTC.

A pre-dawn infrared photograph taken from the deck of the recovery vessel MV Shannon, shows Endeavour still glowing from the heat generated by her passage through the atmosphere as she awaits recovery, January 15th, 2026. Credit: SpaceX

Splashdown came at 08:40 UTC, closing-out a 167-day flight for the four crew. Recovery operations then commenced as a SpaceX team arrived at the capsule via launches and set about preparing it to be lifted aboard the recovery ship, which also slowly approached the capsule stern-first. By 09:14 UTC, Endeavour had been hoisted out of the Pacific and onto a special cradle on the stern of the MV Shannon, allowing personnel on the ship to commence the work in fully safing the capsule and getting the hatch open to allow the crew to egress.

On opening the hatch, a photograph of the four crew was taken, revealing them all to be in a happy mood, the smiles and laughter continuing as they were each helped out of Endeavour with none of them giving any clues as to who might have suffered the medical condition. Gurneys were used to transfer all four to the medical facilities on the Shannon, but this should not be taken to signify anything: crews returning from nigh-on 6-months in space are generally treated with caution until their autonomous systems – such as sense of balance – etc, adjust back to working in a gravity environment.

Visors up and thumbs up, the four crew (Platonov, Fincke, Cardman and Yui) aboard Endeavour as the capsule hatch is opened following recovery onto the MV Shannon. Credit: SpaceX

Following their initial check-out, all four members of Crew 11 were flown from the Shannon to shore-based medical facilities for further examinations. The ship, meanwhile, headed back to the port of Long Beach with Endeavour. Following their initial check-outs in California, the four crew were then flown to Johnson Space Centre, Texas on Friday, January 16th for further checks and re-acclimatisation to living in a gravity environment. No further information on the cause of the evacuation or who had been affected by the medical concern had, at the time of writing, been given – and NASA has suggested no details will be given, per a statment issued following the crew’s arrival at Johnson Space Centre.

The four crew members of NASA’s / SpaceX Crew-11 mission have arrived at the agency’s Johnson Space Centre in Houston, where they will continue standard postflight reconditioning and evaluations. All crew members remain stable. To protect the crew’s medical privacy, no specific details regarding the condition or individual will be shared.

– NASA statement following the arrival of the Crew 11 members at JSC, Texas.

Artemis 2 on the Pad

The massive stack of the second flight-ready Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and its Orion MPCV payload, destined to carry four astronauts to cislunar space and back to Earth, rolled out of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre atop its mobile launch platform, to make its way gently to Launch Complex 39B (LC-39B).

The rocket – comparable in size to the legendary Saturn V – and its launch platform slowly inched out of High Bay 3 at the VAB at 12:07 UTC, carried by one of NASA’s venerable Crawler Transporters at the start of the 6.4 kilometre journey.

Artemis emerges: Sitting atop it mobile Launch Platform and on the back of a Crawler Transporter, the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle containing Integrity, departs High Bay 3 of the Vehicle Assembly Building, Kennedy Space Centre, on the firs leg of the Artemis 2 flight to cislunar space and back. Credit: AP/John Raoux

The drive to the launch pad took almost 12 hours to complete, the average speed less than 1.6 km/h throughout. Standing 98 metres in height, SLS is powered by a combination of 4 RS-25 motors originally developed for the space shuttle, together with two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) based on those also used for the shuttle – although these boosters, with their tremendous thrust, will only be available to the rocket during the first couple of minutes of its ascent to orbit, helping to push it through the denser atmosphere before being jettisoned, their fuel expended.

The next major milestone for the launch vehicle is a full wet dress rehearsal on February 2nd, 2026. This involves a full countdown and fuelling of the rocket’s two main stages with 987 tonnes of liquid propellants, with the rehearsal terminating just before engine ignition. The wet dress rehearsal is a final opportunity to ensure all systems and launch / flight personnel handling the launch are ready to go.

Artemis 2 on its way to Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Centre, January 17th,2026. Note the large boxy grey structure on the left of the base of the rocket. The is the combined propellants feed and power transfer mechanism, which proved problematic with leaks during preparations for Artemis 1 in 2022. Credit: AP/John Raoux

It was the wet dress rehearsal that caused numerous problems for NASA with Artemis 1, the uncrewed flight of an Orion vehicle around the Moon in 2022, with repeated leaks occurring in the cryogenic propellant feed connections on the launch platform. These issues, together with a range of other niggles and the arrival of rather inclement weather, forced Artemis 1 to have to return to the VAB three times before it was finally able to launch.

Since then, changes have been made in several key areas – including the propellant feed mechanisms. The hope is therefore that the wet dress rehearsal for Artemis 2 will proceed smoothly as the final pre-flight test, and the green light will be given for a crewed launch attempt, possibly just days after the rehearsal. However, Artemis 2 will not be standing idle on the pad until February 2nd; between now and then there will be a whole series of tests and reviews, all intended to confirm the vehicle’s readiness for flight and ground controllers readiness to manage it.

The crew of Artemis 2 – Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, and NASA astronauts Christina Koch, Victor Glover and Reid Wiseman, prepare to address the media as Artemis 2 crawls by on its way to the launch pad. Credit: NASA

Assuming everything does go smoothly, NASA is currently looking at Friday, February 6th, 2026 as the earliest date on which Artemis 2 could launch, with pretty much daily windows thereafter available through until February 11th, with further windows available in March and April.

As I’ve recently written, Artemis 2 will be an extended flight out to cislunar space over a period of 10 days, during which the 4-person crew of NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Christina Koch and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen will thoroughly check-out the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and its fitness as a lunar crew transport vehicle.

These tests will initially be carried out in Earth orbit over a 24-hour period following launch, during which the Orion vehicle – called Integrity – will lift both the apogee and perigee of its orbit before performing an engine burn to place itself into a trans-lunar injection flight and a free return course out to cislunar space, around the Moon and then back to Earth. The transit time between Earth and cislunar space will be some 4 days (as will be the return transit time). This is slightly longer than Apollo generally took to get to the Moon, but this (again) is because Artemis 2 is not heading directly for a close orbit of the Moon, but rather out to the vicinity of space that will eventually be occupied by Gateway Station, where crews will transfer from their Orion vehicle to their lunar lander from Artemis 4 onwards. Thus, this flight sees Integrity fly a similar profile the majority of Artemis crewed missions will experience.

As I’ve also previously noted, this flight will use a free return trajectory, one which simply sends the craft around the Moon and then back on a course for Earth without the need to re-use the vehicle’s primary propulsion. Most importantly of all, it will test a new atmospheric re-entry profile intended to reduced the amount of damage done to the Orion’s vital heat shield as it comes back through Earth’ atmosphere ahead of splashdown.

Space Sunday: an evacuation and astronaut health

The International Space Station as it appeared from a Crew Dragon vehicle in 2021. Credit: NASA / SpaceX

For the first time in the history of the International Space Station (ISS), NASA is curtailing an entire crew rotation in order to bring an astronaut with an undisclosed medical condition back to Earth in order for them to receive full and proper treatment.

Exactly what the medical issue is has not been disclosed, although NASA has confirmed it is not injury related and the move is being made out of an abundance of care rather then the crew member suffering any immediate threat to their life. Nor has the name of the affected astronaut been made public as yet. What is known is the affected individual is one of the four people making up the Crew 11 (NASA ISS Expedition 73/74) mission, who arrived aboard the ISS in August 2025, and who were due to return to Earth later in February 2026 following a hand-over to the upcoming Crew 12 mission.

Crew 11 comprises veteran NASA astronaut Michael “Mike” Fincke, who took over the role of ISS commander after arriving there in August 2025, NASA astronaut Zena Maria Cardman, making her first trip into space and who is serving as the station’s Flight Engineer, together with Kimiya Yui of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) on his second mission to the ISS, and Russian cosmonaut Oleg Platonov, on his first flight to orbit.

The Crew 11 / NASA Expedition 73/74 crew, clockwise from top rear: Roscosmos cosmonaut and Mission Specialist Oleg Platonov; JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut and Mission Specialist Kimiya Yui; NASA astronaut (and Crew 11 Commander) Zena Cardman; and NASA astronaut (and Crew 11 Pilot) Mike Fincke. Credit: NASA.

For Cardman this is the second time in succession her debut space flight his been the focus of changes; originally, she was to have flown as part of the Crew 9 mission in 2024, but was removed from that flight alongside astronaut Stephanie Wilson so their positions could be used to return Barry Wilmore and Sunita Wilson to Earth, following the issues with their Boeing Starliner which caused NASA to elect not to use that vehicle to bring them back to Earth.

News of the medical issue first broke on January 7th, when NASA announced the first EVA “spacewalk” of 2026 had been cancelled. This was to have been the first of 4 EVAs carried out by Crew 11 and the upcoming Crew 12 missions to install the last pair of iROSA solar arrays on the ISS as part of a years-long operation to boost the station’s power generation capabilities.

When originally launched, the ISS was furnished with eight pairs of massive 1-tonne solar arrays, each measuring 35 metres in length and 12 metres in width and originally capable of generating some 31 kW of electricity per pair. Called Solar Array Wings (SAWs) by NASA, these massive arrays have slowly become less and less efficient in generating electricity for the station, both as a result of their increasing age and because they are fairly fragile, and some have suffered certain amounts of damage over the decades.

A close-up view of damage done to the 4B SAW of the ISS in 2007, following a move and redeployment of the array during STS-120. Credit: NASA

Initially developed for NASA deep space missions, ROSA – Roll-Out Solar Arrays – are much more compact, much lighter and more robust than the SWs, as well as being far more efficient. The version used on the ISS – iROSA – for example, masses just 325 kg per array, with each array being half the size of the SAW units and able to generate up to 2/3rd the original SAW output. Since 2022, pairs of these iROSA units have been added to the ISS to supplement the SAW units, both stabilising and boosting the station’s power generation capabilities significantly.

As the medical issue was first announced at the time the EVA crew – Fincke and Cardman –  would have been going through personal and equipment check-outs in advance of the actual EVA preparation and execution period planned for January 8th, initial speculation was that one of them had suffered some form of medical issue severe enough to curtail the planned activity. However, speculation as to who the affected crew member might be shifted to JAXA astronaut Kimiya Yui after a press briefing on January 8th revealed that he had requested a private consultation with medical experts on Earth around the same time as the EVA pre-prep work.

Whoever the individual affected is, the result is the same: as they require evacuation to Earth as a matter of safety and well-being, then all four members of Crew 11 must return early from the ISS, so that no-one ends up (dare I use the term beloved of the media?) “stranded” on the ISS “without a ride home”.

A 2021 enhanced image of the International Space Station showing how it would appear with six iROSA solar arrays deployed over three pairs of the the station’s existing primary arrays. At the time, it was only planned to deploy six of the 8 iROSA units to the ISS, the decision to add the final two being made in 2024. Credit: NASA

Currently, the plan is to return Crew 11 to Earth on the 14th / 15th January, with Crew dragon Endeavour departing the ISS at around 22:00 UTC on the 14th, with splashdown off the coast of California planned for around 08:40 UTC on the 15th. Following recovery, the entire crew will likely be flown to shore-based medical facilities.

As a result of this, the ISS is likely to undergo a period when it is under-staffed, with just three people aboard to run things: US astronaut Christopher Williams, on his first rotation at the ISS, together with cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov, who is on his second stint on the ISS and will take over as station commander as from January 12th, and Sergey Mikayev, another ISS rookie. Whilst this is not the first time a reduced crew has operated the station (the last was during the COVID pandemic), the early return of Crew 11 does raise some complications for the immediate future of ISS operations.

The first of these is that without the Crew 11 personnel, the first two EVAs required to prepare the external power systems etc, for the installation of the new iROSA units (which would have been carried out by Crew 12 following their arrival on the ISS in February). Nor can the members of Crew 12 or the other personnel on the ISS simply “slot into” the work Cardman and Fincke were to have performed: each EVA requires specialised training and techniques – and none of Crew 12 nor those remaining on the station have received said training. Thus, the iROSA deploy is liable to be subjected to some delay.

Nor is it clear as to when Crew 12 will be in a position to launch to the ISS and take some of the pressure off of Williams, Kud-Sverchkov and Mikayev. Usually, NASA prefers to launch an outgoing crew several days ahead of a departing crew, so as to allow a formal hand-over one to the next. With Crew 11 now set to return early,it is unlikely such a hand-over will be possible, and as a result, additional time will be required by Crew 12 to get fully up-to-speed with the overall status of the ISS and the revised work schedule for their rotation.

A major determining favour in this could be that of Artemis 2. Under the current launch schedule, the SLS rocket for that mission is set to roll-out to Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Centre on January 17th. Once there, the vehicle will undergo the last remaining tests required to clear it for a planned February 6th, mission lift-off.

Like Artemis 1 in 2022 (see here), Artemis 2 is due to make the drive from the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre to Launch Complex 39B mounted on its Mobile Launch Platform atop NASA’s huge Crawler Transporter. The multi-hour roll-out is currently targeting January 17th, 2026. Credit: NASA

Given this, and while ISS and Artemis missions are essentially separate entities with no real cross-over, NASA is likely to be very cautious about having any parallel launch preparations going on at the “neighbouring” Launch Complex 39A, where SpaceX operate all of their crewed launches, simply because both facilities have a degree of overlap in the use of launch support services – notably radar and tracking capabilities which could bring preparations for both launches into a degree of conflict, particularly if one or the other experiences delays whilst on the pad.

So unless SpaceX is able to demonstrate it is able to accelerate Crew 12 launch preparations to a point where an attempt can be made before the Artemis 2 roll-out and launch and without interfering with the final ground tests Artemis 2 must complete to meet its planned launch date, it is entirely possible Crew 12 will have to wait until around its originally target launch date of February 15th in order to get off the ground. And that’s assuming issues with Artemis 2 don’t push its launch back during a time when Crew 12 could otherwise have been on its pad and otherwise ready to go. As a result, the entire situation remains in something of a state of flux, and this story will continue to develop over the coming week.

Astronaut Health and Welfare

All of the above has forced a degree of focus on the questions of astronaut health and welfare, both on the ISS and in terms of missions to the Moon and Mars. The ISS has the overall advantage in this regard, as it is obviously the closest to Earth, and is the best equipped off-Earth facility when it comes to astronaut health – albeit one that is necessarily limited when it comes to more serious conditions or significant injuries. In particular, the ISS has extensive first-aid and medical facilities, including the likes of an ultrasound scanner, defibrillators and other specialised equipment, with many crew members receiving paramedic levels of medical training, backed by the ability to be able to call on Earthside expertise rapidly and with minimal delay in real-time communications and, in a worse-case scenario, have stricken crew returned to Earth in relatively short order.

While much of this can be replicated in missions to the Moon and Mars, there limitations. Getting back from the Moon is not exactly “immediate”, particularly with regards to the way Artemis using cislunar space rather than a direct Earth-Moon-Earth approach, and Mars is obviously even less so. Further, two-way communications are more limited.; there is always at least a 2.6 second delay in two-way Earth-Moon / cislunar space communications, for example. While this might not sound a lot, it could be the difference between saving and losing a life.

For Mars missions the situation is even worse, given delays are always at least 4 minutes for two-way communications, and can be as much as 24 minutes. Whilst the latter clearly means that practical real-time medical advice and support cannot realistically be offered during medical emergencies, it also means that crews on such mission face the additional psychological strain of being unable to communicate in real-time with family and loved ones, leaving all such contact to pre-recorded messages.

In terms of general health, there are a wide range of issues to be considered. The most obvious is that of physical fitness in micro-gravity conditions: as is only too well-known, long-term exposure to micro-gravity can result in a range of muscular and cardiovascular issues. While these can be addressed through discipline and exercise (around 2.5 hours a day), it’s still a major commitment to do so day in and day out for between 6 and 8 months journey time between Earth and Mars. But whilst such issues are the most referenced of those associated with living and working in microgravity, they they are not the only issues. There are many physiological and psychological matters we have yet to fully understand and address as best we can.

One example of this takes the form of the so-called 2015-16 One-Year Mission (although its duration was technically 11 months). In it, identical twins and astronauts Scott and Mark Kelly where the focus of an in-depth study of physical and psychological impacts of long duration space flight. This saw Scott Kelly spent the time on the ISS, whilst Mark remained on Earth as a control subject. Doing so allowed ten different teams of medical, health and psychology experts to monitor changes in Scott Kelly’s overall health, physiology and psychology using Mark as a baseline reference. Hus, they were able to analyse in detail a wide range of elements and their associated changes in Scott, including body mass changes / redistribution, eye and bone deformation, immune system responses, molecular and psychological changes, alterations in cognitive capabilities and more. The results were in many ways both surprising and unexpected.

Astronauts and identical twins Mark and Scott Kelly after the One-Year Mission (2015/16). Credit: NASA

Whilst Scott Kelly remained in overtly good physical health, he did undergo changes to his cognitive abilities, his DNA and immune system and changes to his body’s gene regulation processes. He also experienced changes to his retinas and eyesight, as well as to his carotids and gut microbiome. Whilst none of these changes were significantly debilitating (and did correct themselves over a period of time following his return to Earth), they were not entirely without outward impact on him, and pointed the way to the potential for serious psychological and other issues being a problem within especially isolated, long-duration missions where direct contact with others outside of the immediate crew is next to impossible in real time.

Nor is this all. As I recently related to friend and fellow space enthusiast Hugh Toussant, there are significant health implications linked to deep space radiation exposure which have only really come to light in the last 6 years and which require much more in the way of study. Some of these issues are, as an example, related to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs), the so-called “background radiation of the Big Bang”, and a subject which has been somewhat overlooked due to a preoccupant with addressing the impact of solar radiation effects such has coronal mass ejections (CMEs) which can admittedly be utterly devastating to an unprotected crew in very short order.

Whilst GCRs perhaps don’t have the immediate threat of something like a CME, they are also potentially much more of a risk over time and harder to address, simply because of the amount of energy they contain. In particular, a 2018/19 study demonstrated that GCR collisions with the human body can result in the reactivation of various strains of Herpes viruses which are otherwise generally dormant. These include the relative mild (but sill unpleasant varicella-zoster virus (VZV), which can cause issues such as glandular fever, all the way through to the highly contagious Epstein–Barr virus (EBV). The latter is particularly nasty, as it is very tightly linked to malignant diseases such as cancers (both lymphoproliferative – Burkitt lymphoma, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma – and non-lymphoid malignancies such as gastric cancer and nasopharyngeal carcinoma).

What was particularly unsettling about this study was that not only did it show that viruses like EBV could be re-activated by exposure to GCRs – but that it had happened to astronauts aboard the ISS, which operates within the relative shelter of Earth’s magnetic field and the protection it offers by diverting GCRs away towards the polar regions and thus out of the path of the ISS as it orbits the Earth.  In particular a check back across the medical histories of 112 astronauts who flew on the ISS and shuttle missions revealed that between 61% and 96% of them had demonstrated shedding one or more re-activated Herpes viruses, including both EBV and VZV.

Exactly how much risk of such viral reactivation might occur on something like a mission to Mars – which largely takes place outside of any protection afforded by Earth’s magnetic field – is utterly unclear. However, given the potential for something like EBZ to give rise to a host of long-term malignant illnesses, it is clear that the apparent link between GCRs and the reactivation and shedding of such viruses needs to be more fully understood in order to enable proper mitigation techniques to be developed well before anyone starts mucking about with trying to send people to Mars.  All of which is a long way of saying that while we have learned a lot about living and working in space, we very much have much more to understand.