Spaceflight – Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld

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

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Inara Pey

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.

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.

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.

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

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Inara Pey

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

Posted on January 12, 2026 by Inara Pey

*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.

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.

Space Sunday: Artemis 2 and a Blue Moon lander

Posted on January 4, 2026 by Inara Pey

*An infographic outlining the Artemis 2 mission, during to take place in the first quarter of 2026. Credit: CSA*

2026 is set to get off to an impressive start for US-led ambitions for the Moon, with the first three months intended to see the launch and completion of two key missions in the Artemis programme.

In fact, if the principal players in both missions get their way, the missions could be completed before the end of February 2026 and between them signal the opening of the gates that lead directly to the return of US astronauts to the Moon in 2028. Those two missions are the flight of the Blue Origin Pathfinder Mission to the lunar surface, and the first crewed flight to the vicinity of the Moon since the end of the Apollo era: Artemis 2.

Blue Moon Pathfinder

As I’ve previously noted in this column, Blue Moon Pathfinder is intended to fly a prototype of the Blue Moon 1 cargo lander to the Moon’s South Polar Region to demonstrate key elements and capabilities vital to both the Blue Moon Mark 1 and its larger, crew-capable sibling, Blue Moon Mark 2.

These goals include: the firing / re-firing of the BE-7 engine intended for use in both versions of Blue Moon; full use of the planned cryogenic power and propulsion systems; demonstration of the core avionics and automated flight / landing capabilities common to both Blue Moon Mark 1 and Blue Moon Mark 2; evaluate the continuous downlink communications; and confirm the ability of Blue Moon landers to guide themselves to a targeted landing within 100 metres of a designated lunar touchdown point.

*An artist’s rendering of the Blue Moon Mark 1 (foreground) and larger Blue Moon Mark 2 landers on the surface of the Moon. Credit: Blue Origin*

Success with the mission could place Blue Origin and Blue Moon in a position where they might take the lead in the provisioning of a human landing system (HLS) to NASA in time for the Artemis 3 mission, currently aiming for a 2028 launch. A similar demonstration flight of Blue Moon Mark 2 is planned for 2027, involving the required Transporter “tug” vehicle needed to get Blue Moon Mark 2 to the Moon. If successful, this could potentially seal the deal for Blue Moon in this regard, given both they and SpaceX must undertake such a demonstration prior to Artemis 3 – and currently, SpaceX has yet to demonstrate the viability of any major component of the HLS design beyond the Super Heavy booster.

Of course, as others have found to their cost in recent years, making an automated landing on the Moon isn’t quite as easy as it may sound, so the above does come with a sizeable “if” hanging over it.

A comparison between the the Apollo Lunar Module, Blue Moon Mark1 and Blue Moon Mark 2. Note that the bulk of the latter comprises the massive Liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank (at the top, with the four large thermal protection / heat dissipation panels needed to help keep the propellant in a liquid form liquid), with the liquid oxygen (LOX) tanks between it and the crew module at the base of the vehicle. Credit: NASA / Blue Origin / David Leonard

The Blue Moon landers are between them intended to provide NASA with a flexible family of landing vehicles, with Blue Moon Mark 1 capable of delivering up to 3 tonnes of materiel to the Moon, and Blue Moon Mark 2 crews of up to four (although 2 will be the initial standard complement) or between 20 tonnes (lander to be re-used) or 30 tonnes (one-way mission) of cargo.

Currently, the Blue Moon Pathfinder flight is scheduled for Q1 2026 – and could potentially take place before the end of January.

Artemis 2: Four People Around the Moon and Back

Artemis 2, meanwhile is targeting a February 5th, 2026 launch. It will see the first crew-carrying Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) head to cislunar space with three Americans and a Canadian aboard in a 10-11 day mission intended to thoroughly test the vehicle’s crew systems, life support, etc. Despite all the negative (and in part unfair) criticism of the Orion system and its SLS launch vehicle, 21 of the 22 pre-launch milestones have now been met. This leaves only the roll-out of the completed SLS / Orion stack to the launch pad and the full booster propellant tanking testing order for the green light to be given to go ahead with a launch attempt.

An infographic shown by Brad McCain, VP and Programme Manager, Armentum Space Operations Division – a company providing critical support to NASA for SLS ground operations – during a December 15th Webinair on Artemis 2. Note both of the December 2025 items were achieved shortly after the webinair. Credit: Armentum / CDSE

No date has been publicly released for the roll-out, but given the issues experienced with Artemis 1, when helium purge leaks caused problems during the propellant load testing, it is likely that even with the high degree of confidence in the updates made to the propellant loading systems since Artemis 1, NASA will want as much time as possible to carry out the test ahead of the planned launch date.

Whilst Orion did fly to the Moon in 2022, the vehicle being used for Artemis 2 is very different to the one used in Artemis 1. This will be the first time Orion will fly all of the systems required to support a crew of 4 on missions of between 10 and 21 days in space (as is the initial – and possibly only, giving the calls to cancel Orion, despite its inherent flexibility as a crewed vehicle – requirements for the system). As such, Artemis 2 is intended to be a comprehensive test of all of the Orion systems, and particularly the ECLSS – Environmental Control and Life Support System; the vehicle’s Universal Waste Management System (UWMS – or “toilet”, to put it in simpler terms); the food preparation system and the overall crew living space for working, eating, resting and sleeping.

These tests are part of the reason the mission is set to have a 10-11 day duration compared to the average of 3 days the Apollo missions took to reach, and then return from, the vicinity of the Moon: NASA want to carry out as comprehensive a series of tests as possible on Orion “real” conditions prior to committing to launching the 30-day Artemis 3 mission.

The mission will also be a critical test for Orion’s heat shield. During Artemis 1, the Orion heat shield suffered considerable damage during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, in what was called “char loss” – deep pitting in the heat shield material. Analysis of the damage reviewed the gouges to be the result of “spalling”. In short, in order to shed some of its enormous velocity prior to making a full re-entry into the atmosphere, Orion had been designed to make several “skips” into and out of the atmosphere, allowing it to lose speed without over-stressing the heat shield all at once.

Unfortunately, the method used to manufacture the original heat shields resulted in trace gases being left within the layers of ablative material. When repeatedly exposed to rapid heating as the Artemis 1 Orion vehicle skipped in and out of the upper atmosphere, these gases went through a rapid cycle of expansion, literally blowing out pieces of the heat shield, which were then further exacerbated as the vehicle make its actual re-entry, resulting in the severe char loss.

Two of the official NASA images showing the severe pitting and damage caused to the Orion MPCV heat shield following re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere at 36,000 km/h at the end of the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission, December 11th, 2022. They show the “char loss” pitting caused by “spalling” within the layers of heat shield material. Credit: NASA / NASA OIG

As a result of the Artemis 1 heat shield analysis, those now destined to be used on Artemis 3 onwards will be put through a different layering process to reduce the risk of residual gases becoming trapped in the material. However, because the heat shield for Artemis 2 was already cast, the decision was made to fly it with the mission, but to re-write the Orion’s atmospheric re-entry procedures and software to limit the number of atmospheric skips and the initial thermal stress placed on the heat shield, thus hopefully preventing the spalling.

The Orion vehicle to fly on Artemis 2 is the second fully-completed Orion system – that is, capsule plus European Service Module – and the first vehicle to ne formally named: Integrity. It is functionally identical to the vehicles that will fly on Artemis 3 onwards, with the exception that it is not equipped with the forward docking module the latter vehicles will require to mate with their HLS vehicles and / or the Gateway station.

The SLS booster to be used in the mission is the second in a series of five such boosters being built. Three of these – the vehicle used with Artemis 1 and those for Artemis 2 and 3 are of the initial Block 1 variant, using the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) as their upper stages. This is an evolution of the well-proven – but payload limited – Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS) developed in the 1990s, and powered by a single RL-10B motor.

Artemis 4 and 5 are intended to be Block 1B versions of SLS, using the purpose-built and more powerful Exploration Upper Stag (EUS), powered by 4 of the uprated RL-10C version of the same engine, enabling them to lift heavier payloads to orbit and the Moon. This means that both Artemis 4 and Artemis 5 will each lift both an Orion MPCV with a crew of 4 and a 10-tonne module intended for the Gateway station intended to be the lunar-orbiting waystation for crews heading to the Moon from Artemis 4 onwards.

*A comparison between the SLS ICPS and future EUS. Credit: NASA*

However, to return to Artemis 2: as noted, it will be the second SLS rocket to be launched, and like Artemis 1, will fly using the venerable and (up until SLS at least) reusable RS-25 motor developed by Rocketdyne for the US space shuttle vehicles. Sixteen of these engines survived the end of the shuttle programme, and Artemis 2 will see the use of both the most reliable of them ever built. and the only one to be built for the shuttle programme but never used.

Engine 2047 has flown more missions than any other RS-25 – 15 shuttle missions in which it gained a reputation for being the most reliable space shuttle main engine (SSME), consistently out-performing all other motors to come off the original production line. It proved so reliable that not only did it help lift 76 astronauts from the US and around the world into orbit, it was often specifically requested for complex mission such as those involved construction of the International Space Station and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. By contrast, engine 2062 will be making its first (and last) flight on Artemis 2, being the last of the original RS-25’s off the production line.

*The four RS-25 engines to be used on Artemis 2, with 2047 highlighted. Credit: Helen Lewin, RS-25 Launch Support Lead, Aerojet Rocketdyne, via the December 15th, 2025 CDSE webinair*

Such is the engineering behind these engines and their control systems that is worth spending a few paragraphs on exactly how they work at launch. While it may seem that all the motors on a multi-engine rocket fire at the same time, this is often not the case because of issues such as the sudden dynamic stress placed on the vehicle’s body and matter of balance, as well as the need to ensure the engines are running correctly.

For the SLS system, for example, engine preparation for launch starts when the propellant tanks are being filled, when some liquid hydrogen is allowed to flow through the engines and vent into the atmosphere in a process called chill down. This cools the critical parts of the engines – notably the high pressure turbopumps – to temperatures where they can handle the full flow of liquid hydrogen or liquid oxygen without suffering potentially damaging thermal shock.

Actual ignition starts at 6.5 seconds prior to lift-off, when the engines fire in sequence – 1, 4, 2, and 3 – a few milliseconds apart (for Artemis 2 engine 2047 is designated flight engine 1 and 2062 flight engine 2, and so these will fire first and second). Brief though the gap is, it is enough to ensure balance is maintained for the entire vehicle and the four engines can run up to power without creating any damaging harmonics between them.

*A diagram of the RS-25 rocket engine used in both the space shuttle system and SLS. Credit: Helen Lewin, RS-25 Launch Support Lead, Aerojet Rocketdyne, via the December 15th, 2025 CDSE webinair*

The low and high pressure turbopumps on all four engines then spool up to their operating rates – between 25,000 and 35,000 rpm in the case of the latter – to deliver propellants and oxidiser to the combustion chamber at a pressure of 3,000psi – that’s the equivalent of being some 4 km under the surface of the ocean. During the initial sequence, only sufficient liquid oxygen is delivered to the engines to ignite the flow of liquid hydrogen, causing the exhaust from the engines to burn red. This high pressure exhaust is then directed as thrust through the engine nozzles, meeting the air just beyond the ends of the engine bells.

The counter-pressure of the ambient air pressure is enough to start pushing some of the exhaust gases back up into the engine nozzles, causing what is called a separation layer, visible as a ring of pressure in the exhaust plume. This back pressure, coupled with the thrust of the engines, is enough to start flexing the engine exhaust nozzles, which in turn can cause the exhaust plume on each engine to be deflected by up to 30 centimetres.

Images of a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) ignition sequence showing the formation of the separation rings (arrowed left) and the cleaner-burning half-diamonds (right) as the engines come to full thrust. Credit: NASA

To counter this, the flight control computers initiate a cycle of adjustments throughout each engine, which take place every 20 milliseconds. These adjust the propellant flow rate, turbopump speeds, combustion chamber pressure and the movement of the engines via their gimbal systems in order to ensure all of the engines are firing smoothly and all in a unified direction and pressure, symbolised by a “half diamond” of blue-tinged exhaust (the colour indicating the flow of liquid oxygen) as the separation layer is broken, the thrust of the engines fully overcoming ambient air pressure resistance. All this occurs in less than four seconds, the flight computers able to shut down the engines if anything untoward is monitored. Then, as the countdown reaches zero, the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) ignite and the vehicle launches.

Once underway, Artemis 2 will carry its crew of 4 into Earth orbit for a 24-hour vehicle check-out phase, during which the orbit’s apogee and perigee are raised. Check-out involves the crew completing a series of tests on the vehicle and its systems, including piloting it, both before and after the ICPS is jettisoned. Completion of this initial check-out phase will conclude with the firing on the ESM’s motor to place Orion on a course for the Moon.

Orion includes the ability for the crew to stow their flight seats flat once in orbit in order to give themselves more room in the capsule. This includes allowing them to rig four shuttle-style sleeping bags in the cabin, each of them positioned in a way that also maximises space for the crew, whilst also positioning them close to the vehicle’s “glass” command and control systems. Credit: NASA

The flight to the Moon will be undertaken using what is called a free return trajectory. That is, a course that will allow the vehicle to loop around the Moon, using its gravity to swing itself back onto a trajectory for Earth without using the main engine to any significant degree. This is to ensure that if the ESM were to suffer a significant issue with its propulsion system, the crew can still be returned to Earth; only the vehicle’s reaction control system (RCS) thrusters will be required for mid-course corrections.

This also means that the mission will only make a single pass around the Moon, not enter orbit. It will pass over the Moon’s far side at a distance of some 10,300 kilometres and then head back to Earth. On approaching Earth, the Orion capsule will detach from the ESM, perform the revised re-entry flight to hopefully minimise any risk of spalling / char loss, prior to splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.

Orion MPCV 003 Integrity, the vehicle that will carry 4 astronauts on Artemis 2 at Kennedy Space Centre in 2025. The capsule is mated to its ESM, which is in turn mounted on the conical Spacecraft Adapter and awaiting the installation of the three Encapsulated Service Module Panels. Credit: NASA

I’ll have more on the actual mission and the flight itself as it takes place. In the meantime, my thanks to the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (CDSE) for hosting a special webinair on Artemis 2 in December 2025, from which portions of this article – particularly some of the graphics – were drawn.

Space Sunday: a look at near-future space stations

Posted on December 29, 2025 by Inara Pey

*An artist’s impression of India’s Bharatiya Antriksh Station (BAS), on-orbit assembly of which is targeted to commence in 2028*

In my previous Space Sunday piece, I covered the appointment of Jared Isaacman as the new NASA Administrator and the fact that on the day of his appointment, he was effectively given a new set of high priority tasks by the White House. Among these was an order to oversee the decommissioning of the International Space Station (ISS) in 2030, and to move US low-Earth orbit space operations over to the private sector.

The Decommissioning of the ISS is not new – in fact, it was originally intended to only be in operation through until 2015, but such is the success of the mission that it has been periodically extended by mutual agreement of the supporting partners – notably the US, the European Space Agency and Canada, all of who form the nucleus of the International section of the station (officially referred to as the US Orbital Segment, or USOS), together with Russia, operating the Russian Orbital Segment (ROS).

Despite this success, Russia actually started planning to depart the ISS in 2009, when it indicated it would separate the ROS from the ISS in 2016(ish) and use the modules to establish the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex (OPSEK), a new station intended to become the “gateway” to Russian crewed missions to the Moon and beyond. But with the agreements reached to extend ISS operations beyond 2015 and then beyond 2020, Russia opt to push the OPSEK idea to one side, seeing more advantage in remaining part of the ISS programme.

This changed in 2021, when negotiations commenced to extend ISS operations beyond 2024. Roscosmos was initially unhappy about any extension beyond 2024, citing concerns that several of their ISS modules would be approaching their end of life. Whilst a semi-agreement was reached by the majority of parties to see the ISS remain operational until at least 2028, Roscosmos would only commit to the agreed 2024 end-date, stating that Russia would exit the programme some time thereafter. This was an ambiguous statement at best, given that departing the ISS agreement “after 2024” could be taken to mean Russia would remain engaged until 2028 or even 2030 – or could simply announce its intention to pull out at any time in between, simply giving the minimum 12-month notice required of the partnership agreement.

Instead of formally agreeing to stay with the ISS through until at least 2028, Roscosmos indicated that from 2022 onwards, it would start to pivot towards its own new space station, Rossiyskaya orbital’naya stantsiya (or ROS – which, in order to avoid confusion with the existing ROS at the International Space Station, is generally referred to as ROSS: the Russian Orbital Service Station). Under the initial plan put forward, ROSS was to be established in a polar, Sun-synchronous orbit (allowing it to observe the entire surface of the Earth), and would comprise an initial two modules Russia had been developing for the ISS – NEM-1 and NEM-2.

Under this plane, rather than going to the ISS in 2024 and 2025 respectively, the NEM modules would be repurposed, NEM-1 becoming the Universal Node Module (UNM) at the heart of the new station to be launched in 2027. NEM-2 would then become the Base Module (BM) for expanding the station, with a planned launch in 2028. Further brand-new modules would then be added periodically through until 2035.

However, those plans have now changed again. Whilst the repurposing of the former NEM modules continues and their launch dates remain broadly unchanged, on December 17th, 2025, it was announced that Roscosmos plan to detach their ROS modules from the ISS in 2030 and use them to help form the new ROSS facility, which would now occupy a 51.6º orbit (i.e. one on a par with the ISS, as attempting to move the Russian modules into a high inclination orbit isn’t really feasible).

*The Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) of the ISS. Credit: Russianspaceweb.com*

The announcement – made by Oleg Orlov, Director of the Institute of Biomedical Problems at the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) rather than by Roscosmos – is something of a surprise. As noted, several of the Russian ISS modules are either approaching or have surpassed their planned lifespan (what Roscosmos refers to as their “warranty period”).

Of the major modules, Zarya (the first module of the ISS to be launched and the module directly connecting to the USOS segment of the ISS) commenced construction in 1994 with completion in 1998, and thus will hit 30 years in 2028; Zvezda, the functional core of the Russian segment of the ISS is even older, having initially been laid down in 1985 as a part of the never-flown “Mir-2” space station. It has also, since 2019, been subject to on-going air leaks likely the result of failing welds within a part of its structure.

Nauka is similar to Zvezda in that its core frame was laid down in the mid-1980s, only for work to the halted for a time and the resumed in the 1990s when it was re-purposed to be the back-up for Zarya, prior to work halting again. Thus, whilst it is the most recent of the large modules to be added to the Russian segment of ISS (2021), it is in part one of the oldest at 30 years. Only the three smaller modules, Rassvet, Prichal and Poisk will have reasonable lifespans after they separate from the ISS.

A further concern in the “recycling” of the current ROS modules as a part of any new station is that of contamination. Orlov himself raised concerns over the potential health risks for cosmonauts using the ROS modules in 2022, after it was found that bacteria and fungi had successfully made themselves at home within some of the modules and have proven particularly hard to eradicate.

Speculation is that the move back to continuing to use the ROS elements of the ISS within the new Russian space station despite the risks involved has been driven by economic factors – the cost of the invasion of Ukraine, the impact of western sanctions, and diminishing resources. First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, when indirectly commenting on Russian space ambitions, indicated the decision to move the new station to 51.6º orbit and use the ISS elements was the result of both economic factors and the fact that operating a station at such an inclination would help facilitate co-operative research between ROSS and the upcoming Indian space station which will occupy a similar orbital inclination, making both stations equally accessible to launches from either nation.

Exactly where all this might lead is still open for debate; critique over the proposed re-use of the ROS elements of the ISS is currently garnering as much concern from inside Russia as it is from the wider international community. As such, exactly if and how ROSS will develop remains to be seen.

And yes, India is also getting in on the space station act, despite never having domestically flown anyone to orbit – yet.

A full-scale mock-up of the core module for India’s Bharatiya Antariksh Station, arriving in New Delhi to form a part of the exhibition displays for India’s National Space Day, August 2025. Credit: ISRO via ANI

The Bharatiya Antriksh Station (BAS) forms a core part of an ambitious and aggressive drive by India to become a major space power, with the country developing plans for an expanding presence in space extending out to 2047. Part of this involves engaging in partnerships and agreements with other major space players – notably the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA and Roscosmos.

However, India is also already well advanced in its development of a human-rated launch capability, with its Gaganyaan (“celestial craft”) crew vehicle and service module due to make its first uncrewed orbital flight in January 2026. Two further uncrewed test flights planned for 2026 prior to a first crewed orbital flight in 2027.

Capable of flying a crew of up to 3, Gaganyaan carries certain similarities to both the upcoming Russian next generation crew capsule and that of China’s in-development new crew vehicle. It is highly automated and capable of independent on-orbit operations of up to seven days duration, and it will be used to ferry crews to / from the upcoming BAS.

India’s Gaganyaan crewed vehicle (sans solar arrays) and its HLV3M launch vehicle. The latter is a crew-rated evolution of the country’s medium-lift Launch Vehicle Mark-3 (LVM3), with a 10-tonne to LEO payload capability. Credit: ISRO

On-orbit assembly of BAS is due to commence in 2028 with the launch of the first module, currently referred to as “Phase-1”. Details of the completed station’s design and appearance are scant, but modules will be launched using India’s LVM3 medium-lift launch vehicle, suggesting they will all not exceed 10 tonnes in mass and thus marking them as slightly smaller than the core modules of the international segment of the ISS. What is known indicates that BAS will likely comprise 5 main modules, including a multiple docking facility, and when complete, mass around 50-55 tonnes orbiting in a 51.4º inclination orbit at an altitude of 400-450km. The size of the station at five core modules suggests it will have an overall pressurised volume of about 260m³, of which roughly 105m³ will be habitable space (the rest being taken up by life support and other essential systems). This would make the completed BAS facility slightly smaller than the current size of China’s Tiangong station.

Not that a lack of size accounts for anything – simply constructing, launching, assembling and operating its own independent orbital facility, capable of supporting 3 or 4 people in relative comfort (and 6 at a squeeze for short periods) would be a truly significant achievement for India. One which would further boost the country to the forefront of dedicated international space research.

Which brings us to China and Tiangong.

A rendering of China’s Tiangong space station showing a Shenzhou crew vehicle docked at the Tianhe module (foreground), an next generation Mengzhou crew vehicle attached to the nadir port on the main docking module and on of the massive Tianzhou automated resupply vessels mated to dock adapter’s rear port (relative to the image). Credit: CMSA

With their space station now well established, China is again indicating a potential further expansion to Tiangong. Originally announced in 2023, the expansion now appears to be going ahead, the plan being to add up to three further modules – a new core habitat module (essentially an updated version of the current Tianhe core module with a new multi-port docking module) plus two improved versions of the physically near-identical Wentian and Mengtian science modules.

The new modules will provide increased living and working space allowing for expanded crews on the station, with the science modules including 3D printing capabilities, improved robotic arms and external experiment bays, with crew supported in their work by robot systems. A new suite of equipment intended for space debris observation, detection and potential collision warning will also be included within the updated core module, underscoring the increasing risk to spacecraft operating in low Earth orbit being exposed to space debris collisions – a lesson the Chinese recently learned with Shenzhou 20.

To further enhance Tiangong’s importance, China has been developing international partnerships to carry out joint research into a range of areas (including human medicine and health) with multiple nations. These cooperative ventures include both Russia and India, and until political and financial tensions ended it, the European Space Agency was forming a collaboration with China that would have seen European astronauts training with Chinese tiakonauts and completing crew rotations on Tiangong.

A computer-generated rendering of the expanded Tiangong space station, showing the existing modules – Tinahe, Mengtian and Wentian with a Tianzhou resupply vehicle docked at the Tianhe module, and the proposed new modules (top of image) as they will likely be attached to the station. Additional solar arrays for power may also be added by means of booms attached to the outer ends of Mengtian and Wentian. Credit: CMSA, annotations by I.Pey.

No time frame has been given as year for the launch of the plan new modules for the Chinese station; the focus right now is in lifting the Xuntian space telescope into orbit.

This state-of-the-art observatory will co-orbit with Tiangong and be capable of periodic automated docking with the station to allow for maintenance and update. Xuntian will have a 2-metre diameter primary mirror (compared to the 2.4 metre diameter primary mirrors on the Hubble Space Telescope and the upcoming Nancy Grace Roman telescope), coupled to a 2.5 gixapixel camera to give it a field of view 300-350 times greater than Hubble and with a higher resolution.

Also known as the CSST – Chinese Space Station Telescope – Xuntian is so advanced it has faced several delays in its launch whilst issues were resolved. Originally, it had been planned to lift the observatory to orbit at the end of 2023, this date was first pushed back into 2024 and then to mid-2025. Currently, China is targeting an end-of-2026 launch for Xuntian, after which the focus will switch more to Tiangong’s expansion.

In addition, and further underscoring China’s longer-term intentions in orbit and beyond, 2026 should see the first uncrewed launch of Mengzhou, the country’s next generation crew-carrying vehicle. Capable of carrying up to 6 (or a crew of 3 + a half tonne of supplies), Mengzhou is to form the backbone of Chinese human space activities through the 2020s and 2030s, serving as both a crew transportation vehicle between Earth and Tiangong and as the principle means of ferrying crews to / from lunar orbit as China seeks to establish a presence there.

Also on the horizon for Tiangong is a new automated resupply vehicle. Called Qingzhou, it is intended to operate alongside China’s existing Tianzhou resupply craft, but provide a lower-cost alternative for delivering small loads (around 2 tonnes) to Tiangong quickly and easily. A focus of this will be in the delivery of food and water supplies for crews on the station, including fresh produce which can be stored in a 300-litre capacity “cold chain” food store. As with Mengzhou, the compact resupply vehicle, roughly 5 metres long and 3 metres in diameter, is expected to make an initial test flight in 2026. Further, once operational, Qingzhou will be offered commercially as a cargo delivery service to other space station facilities including both BAS and ROSS.

A scale model of China’s next generation Mengtian crew vehicle (l) and a full-scale mock-up of the new Qingzhou resupply vehicle. Both are expected to undergo orbital flight tests in 2026. Credit: various

As noted in my previous Space Sunday article, the United States has no plans to operate any fully government-funded space station in Earth orbit once the ISS is decommissioned. Instead, it is looking to the private sector to take up the challenge. While there are several in-development private sector space station proposal in development, all of which are seeking partial US government funding, whether any / all of them will offer the kind of space-based research facilities as offered by the ISS is questionable. As is the question as to which of them will actually fly.

For example, two of the leading contenders in the race to develop a private sector space station are a consortium led by Blue Origin (Orbital Reef), and a solo venture by Axiom Space (Axiom Station). However, despite chasing further NASA funding under the LEO Destinations Programme, both of these stations would appear to be primarily focused on the (potentially lucrative) space tourism business, boasting facilities such as private suites with views of Earth, high-definition audio systems, “mood enhancing LED lighting throughout”, cosy, soft fabric coverings for interior walls, and other creature-comforts.

Another seeker of NASA funding is Vast, a company trying to establish two facilities in orbit. The first is a single module station called Haven 1, intended to be launched some time in mid-2026. More of a proof-of-concept than practical orbital facility, the company plans to follow Haven 1 with Haven 2, starting in 2028.

This is a far more ambitious undertaking, intended to expand from a single module in 2028 to a total of nine by 2032, new modules being added at roughly 6 month intervals. However, whilst billed as a successor to the ISS and capable of EVAs and other activities, and of providing “10 external payload facilities, allowing scientific research, development, and manufacturing to take place outside the station”, the exact science capabilities for Haven 2 have not been publicly released.

*Vast’s proposed Haven 2 space station in it 2032 completed configuration. Credit: Vast*

A small-scale technology demonstrator, Haven Demo, intended to test the propulsion, flight computers and navigation software to be used on Haven 1 and Haven 2 was successfully launched by SpaceX (who will provide all launch capabilities for the Vast projects, including crew transportation using Crew Dragon, together with communications via the Starlink network), so it will be interesting to see what data this returns and whether or not Vast can meet their mid-2026 launch target for Haven 1.

One further project I’ll mention here is Starlab, a joint venture between Voyager Technologies in the US and Europe’s Airbus Defence and Space. This potentially has the firmest footing in space research and science, as is intended to comprise two 8 metre by 8 metre modules (that is, twice the diameter of the modules in the international segment of the ISS) in which up to 400 experiments per year can be performed, putting it on a par with the ISS. However, the entire project is currently dependent on the SpaceX Starship vehicle as its launcher. Given the overall status of that project (which is well behind its promised schedule, and apparently solely focused on being a Starlink delivery system if / when it does start proving it can reach orbit carrying a decent payload and be successfully reused) the proposed late-2028 launch target for Starlab could be best defined as “optimistic”.

Thus, on the one side of things, national interests in operating relative large-scale space station facilities – and offering at least some of them (India, China) for international research opportunities – appears to be one the rise, whilst in the US, the emphasis is on turning LEO capabilities for humans over to the private sector wherein revenue, margins and profit are far more motivating than research. As such, it will be interesting as to which plays out better in terms of on-going space-based R&D – and which facilities actually come to pass.

Space Sunday: Administrators and directions

Posted on December 22, 2025 by Inara Pey

*Jared Isaacman in orbit aboard the Crew Dragon Resilience during his Polaris Dawn mission, 2024. Credit: Polaris Dawn*

Billionaire Jared Isaacman was confirmed by the US Senate as NASA’s new Administrator under the Trump administration – more than half a year after his appointment had originally been expected. The delay in the confirmation was the result of Trump himself, who withdrew Isaacman’s nomination virtually on the eve of his initially expected confirmation, possibly as a result of Trump’s public falling-out with the CEO of SpaceX, with whom Isaacman has close ties.

Those ties were a cause of concern back in April 2025, and rose again in the December hearings on Isaacman’s re-nomination, with some within the Senate questioning how unbiased he might be when it comes to making decisions around NASA’s human space efforts – particularly with regards to the Artemis Programme. In particular, questions have been raised over Isaacman’s financial ties to SpaceX – a company he has twice used for private-venture launches which have seen him gain almost 8 days experience in orbit with two crews. Isaacman himself has remained opaque on his precise financial ties with SpaceX, stating NDAs prevent him being more candid, whilst offering – at least prior to his confirmation – to seek release from his obligations by SpaceX to disclose them.

*Jared Isaacman’s official portrait as the 15th NASA Administrator. Credit: NASA*

Another cause for concern over her appointment lay in the form of the 62-page Project Athena document. Penned by Isaacman and his team earlier in the year, this outlined a radical direction for NASA which many saw as not particularly in the agency’s best interests. Within it, Isaacman pushes for various aspects of NASA’s research work to be handed over to the private sector whilst also seeking to continue the – contentious, as I’ve noted in these pages in the recent past – work of apparently winding down the many functions and much of the work of the Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC) by either transferring them (e.g. to the Johnson Space Centre) or “deleting” them.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with commercialisation where it can be carried out properly and with the right supervision, history has already shown that when it comes to R&D and development, it doesn’t always work out.

Boeing’s Starliner is perhaps the most identifiable case in point here, even allowing for the company having to absorb the majority of the cost over-runs; however, it also overlooks SpaceX, which remains the greatest benefactor of NASA funding with absolutely no return to the American taxpayer. Without NASA’s intervention in the early 2000s, SpaceX would have failed completely with the Falcon 1 rocket, NASA effectively covering the lion’s share of development costs associated with Falcon 9, and with both the Dragon and Crew Dragon vehicles.

For his part, Isaacman has continued to deflect from the Athena document, calling it a set of “ideas” and “thoughts” rather than an actionable plan – this despite the fact that a) it is actually entitled a “strategic plan” for NASA, and b) it lays down a pretty clear roadmap that is heavily biased towards commercialisation, even in areas where it is difficult to see commercial entities being willing to engage unless assured of significant government financing.

However, all of this might now by a side note in terms was to what happens at NASA next, given that on the very day Isaacman took up his new post at NASA, December 18th, 2025, Trump issued an executive order outlining much of NASA’s immediate future priorities – and in places, quite ironically so.

Trump’s New Executive Order for “American Superiority” In Space

Whilst not including anything Earth-shatteringly new, the December 18th executive order focus on four areas: expanding America’s human exploration of space, but with the focus confined to the Moon and Earth orbit; expanding America’s strategic and national security needs in space; “growing a commercial space economy”; and “developing and deploying” advanced technologies “to enable the next century of space achievements”.

Specifically with regards to NASA, the order calls for:

Returning Americans to the Moon by 2028 via Artemis.
Establishing the initial elements of a Lunar South Pole outpost by 2030.
Enabling the use of nuclear power in Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon.
Further NASA’s reliance on commercial launch vehicles and providers.
Streamline NASA’s procurement processes, again with a bias towards buying-in rather than in developing.
Offset costs by decommissioning the International Space Station (ISS) in 2030, and moving to private sector space research and orbital facilities.

In addition, the Executive Order requires that in his first 90 days, Isaacman must submit a report on how the above – and other goals impacting NASA, such as financing commercial space activities – are to be achieved.

*Both Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS (l) and SpaceX’s Starship HLS (r) face some significant challenges if they are to be ready for a 2028 lunar landing. Credits: Blue Origin and SpaceX*

The goal of landing humans on the Moon by 2028 remains something of a reach. As was noted by Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy – and despite the SpaceX CEO’s protestations otherwise – it is very hard to see the SpaceX Human Landing System – the vehicle needed to get crews from cislunar space to the surface of the Moon and back again – and its many complex requirements being anywhere near ready and fully tested by 2028.And while Blue Origin, with their slightly less complicated Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS apparently well ahead of the curve in terms of development – including active astronaut testing of various elements of the vehicle as well as having a launch vehicle proven to be able to reach Earth orbit with a payload in place – it is not without complexities of its own which could yet impact on its ability to overtake the SpaceX Starship-derived system.

Mid-2025 saw Blue Origin work with NASA to test a mock-up of the airlock section of the Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS with the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (“Wet-F tank”) at Johnson Space Centre to assess its suitability for crew egress and return and crew rescue scenarios. Credit: NASA / Blue Origin

Perhaps the biggest issue facing both of these vehicles is NASA’s own insistence that they use cryogenic propellants. This makes both vehicles massively more complex than the likes of the Apollo Lunar Lander, which used a hypergolic motor system and thus it required no complex turbopumps or other systems in its engines, and the propellants did not require an external ignition source (they would ignite on contact) and could be stored relatively compactly.

Cryogenic propulsion, whilst providing a potentially greater bang, does require more complex engines, an ignition source, and substantial storage as they are bulky. Ergo, for either of the two HLS systems NASA plans to employ, there exists a requirement to be able to “refuel” the HLS vehicle when on-orbit, with the SpaceX HLS requiring substantially more in the way of propellant reloading than Blue Moon.

Further, and as the name suggests, cryogenics propellants require very low temperatures in order to remain in a liquid state (essential for reducing their bulk and enabling their flow). That’s hard enough when on Earth; in space, where either HLS vehicle will spend much of its time in the full blazing heat of the Sun, it’s much harder.

Thus, for both HLS vehicles to work, SpaceX and Blue Origin must be able to develop and test a reliable system to transfer tonnes (hundreds in the case of SpaceX HLS) of propellants between craft, and develop a means to minimise potential boil-off and loss through gaseous venting of side cryogenics. Again, neither company is anywhere near achieving either of these milestones.

Establishing the elements of a lunar outpost by 2030 is at best an ambiguous goal within the executive order, in that no effort is made to expand on whether this means on the surface of the Moon or just in cislunar space, such as by the positioning of initial elements of the Lunar Gateway station.

Gateway is a further questionably element of Artemis, with critics pointing to the fact that it is not actually needed for any return to the Moon by America. And while NASA promotes it as a “command and control centre” for lunar operations and a potential “safe haven” in emergencies, the fact remains that it is anything but.

When deployed, the station will likely occupy a 7-day near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon, making its closest passes (1,500 km altitude) over the lunar North Pole, and extending out as far as 70,000 km from the lunar South Pole, the area selected for surface operations, thus limiting its ability to respond to any surface emergency.

That said, the lack of any indicators as to what is meant in terms of a lunar outpost within the executive order does give Isaacman a relatively free hand with his response.

Similarly, the reference to the use of nuclear power is somewhat ambiguous. While there have been studies and proposals on using compact nuclear plants on the surface of the Moon (see: Space Sunday: propulsion, planets and pictures), nothing concrete has been put forward for Artemis, which gives Isaacman some room. However, in terms of propulsion systems (if these are included in the order’s reach), it is interesting to note that the joint DARPA-NASA DRACO project, which would have potentially seen a nuclear propulsion demonstrator flown in 2027, was cancelled earlier in 2025 because – irony – the Trump administration was looking to cancel it anyway under the 2026 budget proposal.

Looking to leverage more commercial launch services is something that fits with Isaacman’s Athena document, as mentioned above. Also as mentioned, there is nothing wrong with this if it s done right, but this is harder to achieve than might otherwise appear to be the case (again, note the comments vis Boeing / Starliner and SpaceX Starship), and too much reliance on commercial entities can led to delays and issues as much as seen with SLS, simply because commercial entitles can have their own goals and requirements which can come at a higher priority.

Again, part – not all, given the fubar over the Artemis space suits – of the fact that Artemis 3 slipped from a 2026 date to 2028 is down to SpaceX consistently failing to prove Starship can do what is promised of it. This includes statements from the company’s CEO that a Starship would fly around the Moon with a crew of 8 in 2023, and the HLS version would make an unscrewed demonstration landing on the Moon in 2024. As such, there is much to be cautious about when it comes to any off-loading of capabilities to commercial entities.

The ISS retirement is easier to rationalise. Like it or not, the entire structure is aging and much of it is passing its planned operational lifespan. Even the most recent large Russian module to join the ISS – Nauka, launched in 2021, started construction in the early 1990s, marking its core structure older than its planned operational lifespan of 30 years. But the Russian modules are not alone, the US Unity module was constructed in the 1990s and launched in 1998, and thus is sitting on top of its 30-year planned lifespan.

The International Space Station, showing the US / International modules “below” the horizontal truss and the Russian modules “above” (to the rear of the US / international elements). Credit: NASA

As such, while there is no reason much of the ISS could continue beyond 2030, it is not without increasing risks and / or rising issues. Thus, decommissioning it does, sadly make a degree of sense.

What does not make sense, however, is the failure to plan for any real replacement for it in Earth orbit and simply relying on “commercial entities” to continue the tradition of research and science established by the ISS. The latter, as a government operation, does not have to generate a return on investment and is ideally suited by its governing articles to be a centre of research and study. Commercial entities, however, will be driven by a need to be profitable – hence why, while there are a number of commercial space stations is development (take Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef as an example, being perhaps the largest), their focus leans far more towards orbital tourism, their operators intending them to become resorts in space for those who can afford a ticket. Using them as a centre of research sits some way behind this, and will not be without a range of its own costs, both in terms of getting to / from a station and in actually spending time aboard it, as well as the time researchers might be permitted to stay.

*The Blue Origin / Sierra Space-led Orbital Reef space station design, prioritise space tourism rather than research of the kind performed aboard the ISS. Credit: Blue Origin / Sierra Space / Boeing*

Another risk in ending the ISS and not supporting any form of replacement potentially undermines the Trump administration’s desire (and the concerns of Congress and the Senate) to curtail (or at least slow) China’s growing ascendency on the international stage. With the ISS gone, Tiangong will become the only large-scale and potentially expandable orbital research facility – thus it could become the hub of international space-based research.

Which is a long way of saying that Jared Isaacman has come into NASA at a time of potential turmoil and with a possible agenda which could do much to completely alter the agency. But whether this is to its betterment or not will have to be seen in time.

	Inara Pey on The floating beauty of Sable H…
	h0neyheart on The floating beauty of Sable H…
	didohaas on The Colour of Vulnerability at…
	Sydney Couerblanc on Afterimages of Spring at Nitro…
	Inara Pey on Afterimages of Spring at Nitro…

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.

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

Gazing into the “Eye of Sauron”

Share this:

Artemis 2 on the Pad

Share this:

Astronaut Health and Welfare

Share this:

Blue Moon Pathfinder

Artemis 2: Four People Around the Moon and Back

Share this:

Share this:

Trump’s New Executive Order for “American Superiority” In Space

Share this: