Tag: Spaceflight

Space Sunday: China’s Chang’e 7, more Kessler and an update

Posted on by Inara Pey
An artist’s rendering of Chang’e 7 in lunar orbit. Visible is the cylindrical orbiter (left) with the lander mounted on top of it (right). Neither the rover nor the hoper are visible. Credit: CCTV

China is about to launch its most ambitious lunar mission to date in the form of Chang’e 7, which will be heading for the edge of Shackleton Crater in the Lunar South Polar Region – the part of the Moon both the US and China have identified as the target for their upcoming crewed lunar missions.

Over the past two decades, the Chang’e missions – named for the moon goddess of Chinese mythology – have been a mainstay of China’s space ambitions and marked the nation’s growing space capabilities. The previous mission, Chang’e 6, saw a lander touchdown on the lunar farside – the first mission ever to do so –, deploy a rover and return surface samples to Earth for international analysis.

The 8-tonne Chang’e 7 mission is somewhat similar to Chang’e 6 in that it comprises an orbiter, a lander and a rover vehicle; however, it will not be returning samples to Earth for analysis. Instead, its primary role is to look for evidence of accessible water ice around the crater and carry out initial prospecting for a location where China might start landing materiel and crew to establish a lunar base.

As such, it marks the start of China’s fourth phase of lunar missions, the others being orbital observation (Chang’e 1 and 2), the second landing and rover deployments (Chang’e 3 and 4), the third nearside and farside sample return missions (Chang’e 5 and Chang’e 6 respectively).

The 24 km wide, 4 km deep Shackleton Crater lies at the Moon’s south pole (which is located near the crater rim at the top right of this image). The crater rim tends to be lit by sunlight with the bottom of the crater remaining in cold shadow. Chang’e 7 is aiming to land somewhere on the crater’s rim and search for evidence of water ice whilst carrying out other studies. Credit: NASA

If all goes according to plan, Chang’e 7 will launch atop a Long March 5 (CZ-5) booster from the Wenchang launch centre and will coast out to the Moon over a period of 6 days on a minimal propellant flight. This will see it essentially spiral away from Earth until the Moon’s gravitational influence becomes dominant and the spacecraft will then transfer to spiralling in towards lunar orbit.

Once at the Moon, Chang’e 7 will become the most ambitious robotic lunar mission ever undertaken, with the lander aiming to make a precise landing high on the rim of Shackleton Crater where it can receive the most sunlight. Providing it does so successfully, it will deploy the rover vehicle – a more advanced unit than previously flown – together with a unique surface “hopper”.

A rendering of the Chang’e 7 rover, said to be a more advanced version of the Yutu rovers flown to the Moon on previous missions, designed to carry out a comprehensive surface survey mission to help prepare the way for human landings. Credit: CCTV

A total of 21 science experiments – including instruments from the USA, Russia, Egypt and Bahrain, and Italy – are being carried across the four vehicles. The orbiter will carry out stereo mapping and radar mapping of the lunar surface in extremely high resolution, together with hyperspectral and spectral analysis of surface material from orbit, magnetic field analysis, surface radiation analysis, and solar radiation / space weather monitoring.

The lander will analyse lunar dust and the local electrical field, listen for moonquakes, evaluate the surface environment – radiation, dust ionisation – and carry out astronomical observations from the Moon’s surface, as well as imaging the local topography. The rover will carry out wider-ranging field studies, analysing the lunar surface for volatile and isotope concentrations, monitoring the local magnetic field, examining the subsurface composition via ground penetrating radar and imaging its surroundings as part of the survey to identify possible landing zone for future missions.

The hopper is a new type of vehicle. Relatively small it is designed to explore the more shadowed regions of smaller craters, etc., by literally hopping around on a set of legs. It is design to hop into an area of shadow and expose surface material under the lunar dust via the impact of its landing legs, then make a small jump to one side so it can use a combination drill / water analyser to gather samples of the material exposed by the initial landing, in order to analyse it for evidence of water ice.

A close-up of an early model of the Chang’e 7 lunar hopper, showing five of the 6 legs. The vertical grey mast at the rear of the hopper is the drilling rig. Credit: CAST / CNSA

All of the data gathered – including gaining a more complete understanding of overall surface lighting and areas of near-constant illumination around Shackleton – will be carried forward into planning for China’s human missions to the Moon, which are due to commence in 2030.

New Study Updates Kessler Syndrome Risk

I’ve written on numerous occasions about the increasing risk of a Kessler syndrome cascade: a single collision in the increasingly crowded domain of near-Earth space resulting in the low-to-medium regime of orbits around our planet becoming unusable in part or in full as the debris from the first collision destroys other satellites in a spreading sphere of destruction.

In this contrasted rendering, each visible orange dot represents a satellite being actively tracked in low Earth orbit (up to 2,000 km and the dense cloud around the planet), medium Earth orbit (the larger sphere of dots around the planet – extending from 2,000 to 35,000 km) and geostationary orbit (the central band around the medium orbit sphere, at some 39,500 km). Credit: NASA

However, trying to calculate the actual risk of such an event occurring has been difficult because the Kessler syndrome model was based on high altitude, relatively passive satellites – that is, units which do not have to “fly in formation” relative to one another at much lower, more crowded obits where they have to dodge potential risks posed by other orbital bodies – other active satellites, rocket debris, defunct satellites awaiting re-entry and burn-up, space stations, and so on – which is precisely what modern constellations launched over the last 5-8 years have to do. Take Starlink, for example: it currently has some 10,900-11,000 active satellites in orbit – and all of them have to perform at least one avoidance manoeuvre every week. And SpaceX plans to expand that constellation to 42,000 active units.

To try to better understand the real risk of collision, Professor Hugh Lewis of the University of University, UK, has been updating the Kessler models to reflect how modern day satellite constellations actually behave, taking into consideration things like active collision avoidance, the risk of thruster failures resulting in loss of control, relative proximity of satellites in a constellation “layer” (i.e. operating at the same altitude and close enough to one another for low-latency communications relay), continuous replenishment rates (i.e. defunct satellites get replaced in the constellation), and de-orbital drag profiles based on the geometry of the satellites themselves.

Using this updated framework, Lewis analysed 14 planned or partially operational satellite constellations (e.g. Starlink at its current 11,000 active units and planned 42,000) to place them in one of three categories:

  • Below Thresholds: a single collision is unlikely to cause a significant issue, and Earth orbital space remains a sustainable operational environment.
  • Exceed Unstable threshold: a single collision will cause a Kessler cascade which will initially increase prior to stabilising, resulting a balance between those orbital regimes which remain usable and those that are rendered unusable due to the volume of debris remaining in orbit at their altitudes.
  • Exceed Runaway threshold: a single collision resulting in infinite fragment growth and a guaranteed loss of all of the satellites within the constellation – and a possible complete Kessler syndrome cascade.

Of the 14 constellations analysed, over half already sit within the Exceed categories (both unstable and runaway). Leaving aside those which have yet to be launched (if they ever are) such as the deeply flawed “AI data centre” constellations, this is worrying on two counts.

An animation of orbital debris hitting a satellite. Credit: ESA

The first is that the study shows that even a modest constellation can have a significant effect if it is subject to a collision. Consider Eutelsat’s Next constellation, for example. This will comprise just 528 units, but it sits within the Exceed Unstable threshold: a single collision between two of the satellites in the network will result in a large portion of the bandwidth of the low Earth orbit regime (up to 2,000 km above Earth) becoming unusable for other satellites, because Next will orbit sufficiently high enough for the resulting debris cloud to take years to fully disperse and re-enter the atmosphere to burn-up.

The second – more worrying – factor is that the analysis only considers the effect of two satellites within a constellation colliding with one another, and the impact this has on the remaining satellites in the constellation.

So, for example, the analysis only considers how the debris from a collision involving two Starlink satellites will affect other Starlink satellites; it doesn’t consider how the debris could affect satellites from, say, China’s GuoWang (15,000 planned) and Qianfan (13,000 planned) operating in pretty much the same orbital plane and altitude, or how that debris might then cause a further cascade of destruction. Nor does the analysis consider the potential for a sufficiently large, stray piece of debris already in orbit to destroy a satellite and so set off a chain of destruction.

Currently available on arXiv whilst awaiting formal peer review, the Lewis paper – Critical Sizes of Satellite Constellations – offers no solutions for the growing risk, but does suggest regulators need to enforce a more rigorous approach to the potential for a full or partial Kessler syndrome event than current methods of debris analysis allow. These consider only how an individual satellite will fragment should it experience an impact sufficient enough to cause it to break-up not the additional effect the break-up would have given the satellite’s orbit and operating proximity to other satellites.

NASA Ends Swift Observatory Rescue but Maintains Mission

In June I covered the daring attempt to rescue a NASA satellite – the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory – from re-entering Earth’s atmosphere in October 2026 and burning up, by using another spacecraft to link up with it and gently push it up to a higher orbital altitude (see: Space Sunday: NASA – a rescue attempt, costs & infrastructure).

Whilst the mission started off well, by the start of August 2026, things had gone sideways, as I noted at the time, with the rescue vehicle – called LINK, and built by Arizona-based Katalyst Space Technologies – itself in trouble after two of its three reaction wheels (used to maintain precise vehicle orientation) had ceased functioning, whilst its cold gas thrusters were also experiencing issues.

A set of an artist’s renderings of LINK in space and rendezvousing with Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, ready to gently push it up to a safe operating altitude before atmospheric drag causes it to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up. Credit: Katalyst Space

On August 19, 2026 NASA called off the rescue attempt – but not the mission as a whole. Essentially, the loss of precise attitude control means that LINK cannot safely connect to the Swift observatory without the risk of a full-on collision. Instead, the spacecraft will now rendezvous with the observatory and carry out approach and operations intended to allow Katalyst to gain data and experience in such manoeuvres as they prepare to start operating a larger recovery craft in future missions.

At a cost of just US $230 million, Swift has been an invaluable science platform and its loss will be felt. The rescue attempt – at just US $30 million has not been a major expenditure, but it was something of a rushed job; despite being aware that Swift would re-enter the atmosphere in 2026, NASA didn’t opt to go ahead with trying to save Swift until late 2025, giving Katalyst just nine months to develop and fly the LINK craft- which is a remarkable feat, even if the outcome isn’t as hoped.

Another Partial Eclipse – Seen from another World

August 12, 2026, as I’ve previously covered (here and here) allowed part of the northern hemisphere – Greenland, Iceland, Spain, in particular – to witness a total solar eclipse, with a partial eclipse being also visible from many areas on both sides of the Atlantic. It was a widely reported event, and the start of a new decade of eclipse watching.

What was less well reported was that just a day later, there was another partial eclipse of the Sun – but this didn’t involve our own Moon and was only seen by one observer: NASA’s Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance.

A magnified and contrast-enhanced image captured by the Mastcam system on NASA’s Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance, showing the 26 km wide Martian moon Phobos (approx. 6,000km from the planet) transiting the disk of the Sun (averaging 229 million km from Mars) to create an eclipse. Credit: NASA/JPL

On August 13, 2026, the rover took time out from exploring the region around Jezero Crater, where it landed in 2021, to look up at the sky with its Mastcam imager to capture Mars’ near most moon, Phobos, transiting the disk of the Sun.

Of course, given Phobos is relatively tiny – less that 26 km across its largest side – means it didn’t come anywhere close to offering so spectacular event as we can witness when our own Moon comes between us and the Sun, but the event was still notable – if not for science, then at least for the impact of being able to see such events from other worlds.

Space Sunday: Europa’s ice, the eclipse, + a rocket goes BANG!

Posted on by Inara Pey
A rendering of Europa, showing the believed subsurface ocean lying over the warm mantle and under the surface ice crust, and in the inset, how this ocean is likely kept liquid. Note, particularly, the deep ice of the crust and the theorised reservoirs of water within the ice, theorised to be formed by ocean water coming up through the ice – an idea now challenged in a new study. Credit: NASA/JPL

The subject of Jupiter’s moon Europa is rather hot at the moment. With two major missions currently en-route to Jupiter to study this icy world – NASA’s Europa Clipper mission, which will focus entirely on Europa, and the European Space Agency’s Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer (Juice) mission, there have been various science papers of late on the subject of liquid water on Europa – two of which I covered most recently at the start of the year.

Those two studies directly speculated on the opportunities for Europa – assuming it does have a relatively warm, liquid ocean sitting under this icy crust – to be the abode of basic life, and with somewhat differing outcomes.

Animation of the Laplace resonance of Io, Europa and Ganymede, showing how Io and Ganymede exert gravitational influence over Europa, most likely causing tidal flexing which helps generate heat within the moon, which it turn helps keeps its ocean liquid. Credit; Matma Rex

While it seems likely that Europa does – through a combination of interior heating and a similar kind of tidal flexing experienced by volcanically active neighbouring Io – have sufficient heat to give rise to a liquid water ocean under its surface, the problems remains of how to get down to that ocean and probe for signs of basic life.

The most common idea for this has been to actually land on Europa and drill down into the ice to obtain deep core samples which might contain minerals and other deposits indicative that the Moon has potentially habitable zones in its ocean – or even to get an automated mini-sub to actually explore the waters under the ice.

The problem here is that we now know that the ice of Europa’s crust is around 30 km thick – that’s not something easily drilled through to any significant depth. Such a thickness of ice also casts doubt on the idea that – based on images and data obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope (2012/13) and the Galileo spacecraft (1995-2003) respectively – water is escaping up from the ocean through crack in the ice  as water vapour geysers.

As a result, the focus of efforts to try to reach liquid water on Europa and gather samples or remote analysis shifted to trying to analyse what appear to be reservoirs of water actually within the ice crust itself, in the belief that these “lakes” were being created by warm water forcing its way up through faults and cracks in the ice and then spreading horizontally through the ice strata – and that this might also be causing the geysers of water vapour believed to have been seen.

However, more recently, revisiting the data from Hubble and Galileo has cast doubt on the idea that Europa is geysering water vapour into space. On top of this, a new study led by scientists from Rutgers University now casts credible doubt on the idea of warm water pushing its way up through 20-30km of ice so as to be close enough to the surface so that when the surface ice breaks as a result of the flexing mentioned above, it could escape as a vast outgassing of water vapour.

The models previously used for determining whether warm water could form conduits up through Europa’s ice from the ocean and then exploit weaknesses within the strata of ice were based on the mechanics of magma here on Earth, which operates in a fairly uniform manner.  Given the apparent nature of cryovolcanism among various bodies around the solar system, this idea of uniform action appeared reasonable.

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

The Rutgers’ study however, looked at the behaviour water is volcanic-like systems and found that its behaviour is far more turbulent than found with denser magma, with convection currents being far more extensive, particularly as warm warm came into direct contact with ice of a density  similar to that measured on Europa.

So instead of the water simple melting and forcing its way up through cracks it forced into conduits, the Rutgers study found the the water would quickly start forming convention currents: the warm water rising up into cracks, with its outer edges rapidly cooling as it made contact with the ice, forming a convection current of rising and descending water – with the latter carrying ice crystals melted off the the ice before the water cooled. These crystals would then clump and cool the water further, eventually choking the entire flow long before the water could rise up through the ice far enough so it could form a reservoir which a) would remain liquid and b) be available to escape as a geyser if the remaining ice above it cracked open.

But given there is data indicating bodies of water are suspended within Europa’s ice, and if they are not formed by warm water forcing its way up from below, what is forming it? The Rutgers’ study suggests a simple, somewhat elegant solution: as noted, Europa is in tidal flux and subject to interior heating; its curst is cracked and line as a result of stress fracturing from this motion. This cracking and fracturing will result in frictional rubbing between different elements of ice and different densities of the ice strata – and friction melts ice.

If the Rutger’s study is correct, it would suggest that trying to obtain samples of any water trapped within Europa’s icy crust is unlikely to reveal much about the potential of the underlying ocean having all the mineral and chemical elements present to give life a kick-start. This does not negate the study of Europa as a whole; there is still much to find out about it – including whether or not the ocean believed to exist there is actually liquid water (rather than, say, an icy slush) – it just underscores the fact that nothing about Europa can really be taken for granted.

Imaging the Eclipse

The diamond ring starts to form (right) in this image by Daisy Dobrijevic, a passenger aboard MS Sitsbergen on an eclipse cruise, august 12, 2026

August 12 saw a total / partial eclipse visible across the north Atlantic and a good portion of western Europe. Whilst the path of totality was predominantly lay across the Atlantic, it did touch eastern Greenland, western Iceland and part of northern Spain and Portugal, with up to 98% partiality witnessed from parts of northern Europe.

Here are some images of the event which have been publicly released.

The diamond ring in a deeper colour view, the Sun’s corona clearly visible in this image from amateur astronomer Spain-Deborah Simpson in Spain

Obviously, those sitting along the line of totality got the greatest views of the eclipse – bot that’s not to say those only witnessing a partial eclipse missed out, as “Mr photon” from Switzerland demonstrated, with the assistance of a local hot air ballooning event!

Credit: “Mr. Photon”

Long March 7A Explodes After launch

Just to show western rockets have exclusivity on exploding, on August 10, 2026, China suffered a failure with a Long March 7A booster.

A variant of the Long March 7 (CZ-7) workhorse, capable of lobbing just under 14 tonnes to low Earth orbit (LEO) and 7 tonnes to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), the CZ-7A was first launched in 2020 and up until the August 10 launch, had a record for 16 successful flights out of 17 launches.

The launch was intended to deliver a Zhongxing-4B telecommunications and broadband internet satellite to GTO, the rocket lifting-off from the Wenchang Space Launch Site, Hainan province at 12:00 noon UTC on August 10. The flight appeared to be proceeding well until 85 seconds after launch, when the vehicle exploded.

August 10, 2026: A long March 7A (CZ-7A) rocket explodes over China, 86=5 seconds after launch. Credit: Meng Zhongde

It is not clear exactly what happened, but the timing of the flight suggests that the explosion occurred as the vehicle was experiencing “max-Q” – when the structure is facing the maximum in aerodynamic stresses as it accelerates and tries to punch its way through the denser atmosphere. Some reports suggest that this might have resulted in the forward, upper section of the rocket suffering a structural failure, however, amateur footage taken of the launch appears to show an initial explosive flare near the base of the vehicle, which appears to have split it in two, prior to a second explosion occurring.

This might be significant, as the very first flight of the CZ-7A in 2020 is said to have been result of a pressurisation failure in one of the rocket’s four strap-on boosters – although that particular vehicle loss came some 168 seconds into the flight.

The Long March 7 family has an interesting operation in regards to its core stage and side boosters. While such arrangements are common in rocket systems, in most, the side boosters tend to be jettisoned once they’ve carried out the work of initially accelerating the booster and getting it through “max-Q”, lightening the load and allowing the first stage to continue to power the rocket until its fuel is expended. However, with the Long March 7, the side boosters and core stage are jettisoned as a single unit, generally around 170-175 seconds into the flight.

At the time of writing, some 5 days after the vehicle loss, the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) has not commented on the event, other than to state it is under investigation. Whether or not any reason for the vehicle loss will be given in the future is unclear – while there is speculation as to the cause of the loss of the first CZ-7A in 2020, China has never officially revealed the cause of that loss, and the same could be seen with this vehicle as well.

Space Sunday: an eclipse, deadly dust, and updates

Posted on by Inara Pey
As the August 12, 2026 partial eclipse might be seen from the coast of Cornwall in the UK.

August 12, 2026 will see a total solar eclipse sweep across the Atlantic Ocean, the path of totality – in which the disk of the Moon completely covers that of the Sun as seen from Earth – extending down from the Arctic Ocean, across eastern Greenland and western Iceland before traversing the Atlantic to pass over northern Spain, the Balearics and parts of the Mediterranean before coming to an end as the Sun and Moon seem to part company once more.

The path of totality is not wide – just 393 kilometres across; but you don’t have to be completely within it in order to witness the eclipse. Countries to both the east and west will be witness to a partial eclipse, with much of western Europe – Scandinavia, the British Isles, France, the low countries, Germany and Italy in particular – will be treated to an evening partial eclipse to varying degrees, complete with a darkening of the skies as the disk of the Moon obscures a fair portion of the Sun, as if taking a bite out of it. For those in Europe who – weather permitting – would like to witness the event, here’s a quick outline of when and where to look and what to expect:

  • Start of eclipse time:
    • British Isles: 17:10 to 17:16 UTC (18:10-18:16 BST);  maximum period of eclipse: 18:05-18:15 UTC (19:05-19:15 BST) – times varying according to latitude.
    • Europe: one hour later for either (UTC or daylight / summer time).
  • Direction of eclipse: west / north-west (depending on latitude).
  • Duration of maximum partial eclipse and percentage of Sun covered: 2-2.5 minutes, between 75% and 95% of the Sun’s disk covered.
  • Best coastal locations for observation: western coastal areas with uninterrupted sea views (e.g. west coasts of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Prembrokshire, together with the Scilly Isles and  north coasts of Cornwall and Devon for the British Isles).
  • Best inland locations: elevated areas to avoid horizon obstructions.
  • Locations subject to total eclipse in Europe: the Spanish mainland cities of Bilbao, Santander, Valladolid, Burgos, Zaragoza and Valencia and their immediate surroundings, plus Palma, Mallorca.

If you do decide to watch the eclipse it is essential you follow safety guidelines, including:

  • Projecting the image of a eclipse using a telescope. Credit: Sky & Telescope

    NEVER look directly at the Sun with the naked eye OR when wearing sunglasses. The latter will not provide the levels of protection required, and looking at the Sun in either of these ways can result in serious eye damage.

  • If you plan to use solar eclipse glasses, make sure they are certified to ISO 12312-2. Also, if they are the kind with cardboard frames be sure to HOLD them in place; lightweight solar glasses can easily be dislodged by a breeze or by being bumped, potentially resulting in eye damage.
  • NEVER, EVER look at the Sun via a telescope or with binoculars without using a fully certified Sun filter system designed specifically for your equipment. If you do not have either, then use projection – position the telescope / binoculars so that the image of the Sun is being cast on a suitable flat surface (such a smooth pavement or piece of cardboard  – be careful over over-heating the latter!) and observing the eclipse by watching the image, not by looking through the lens – see the image to the right as a guide.
NEVER look directly at the Sun with the naked eye or when using sunglasses, and certainly not via binoculars or a telescope or camera viewfinder / screen. ALWAYS use properly-certified solar glasses and solar filters suitable for the equipment you are using. Image credit: Getty library stock

Given European weather can be a pain at times (let’s face it, we may be in a heatwave, but that doesn’t stop Mother Nature from being awkward on the day and cluttering the sky with clouds!), and given the limited opportunities for really good viewing, the best way to witness the eclipse could be on-line. NASA live, for example will be showing the entire eclipse. and in mentioning NASA I should note that those in Eastern Canada and the United States will also be able to see a partial eclipse, but the coverage of the Sun by the Moon will be much less than will be seen from Europe.

A number of space-related and astronomy sites will also be either livestreaming or blogging the event with photographic updates, so Google is your friend for finding these.

The eclipse can be tracked using Xavier Jubier’s Interactive Google Maps Eclipse Tracker

nor is that all; August 12 marks what eclipse hunters are calling a “golden age” of total solar eclipses visible from more accessible locations around the world over the next decade. Some of these will be:

  • August 2, 2027: Spain, Gibraltar, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, British Indian Ocean Territory.
  • June 22, 2028: Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Australia, New Zealand.
  • November 25, 2030: Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho and Australia.
  • March 20, 2034: Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and China.
  • September 2, 2035: China, North Korea, Japan.

For the poor old British Isles, the next total eclipse to be directly visible across the countries will occur on September 23 – 2090!

Humans to Mars: The Risks of Deadly Dust

At some point in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future, humans will set foot on Mars. However for any nation or group of nations attempting this goal there are a number of challenges to be addressed, particularly in the areas of human psychology and welfare. One of those most frequently mentioned is that of radiation, both solar and galactic; however, whilst a major factor in planning for any human missions to Mars, the focus on radiation does tend to overshadow another equally hazardous issue: Martian dust.

Like the Moon, Mars is an extremely dusty environment. During Apollo, lunar dust caused numerous issues, from spacesuit erosion and compromising suit seals and joints, through getting into electrical and air circulation systems and causing overheating issues to most particularly getting into eyes, sinuses and ears to cause irritation, and into pulmonary systems where it could cause respiratory issues if not treated. Fortunately, the Apollo missions weren’t of a length where the health implications reached a point of any serious debilitation. On Mars, humans will face similar challenges, but to a much greater degree, both because of the nature of the dust and because of the duration of any mission.

Gene Cernan, the commander of the Apollo 17 lunar mission, photographed by crewmate Harrison Schmitt aboard the lunar module Challenger following their first surface EVA, December 11, 1972. Note the dust accumulation on his space suit. Credit: NASA / Schmitt.

While Martian dust – sometimes call “fines” on account of its extremely tiny nature and shape – carries similar and harmful silicates to those contained within lunar dust, it also carries perchlorates and metals like chromium, beryllium, arsenic, and cadmium, all of which are extremely toxic to humans and living cells. Given the duration of a typical humans-to-Mars mission (36-40 months), a crew continuously exposed to dust inhalation without proper precautions being taken, face potentially very serious health risks.

The concern is that future crews will be living and working in a closed habitat, repeatedly going outside, bringing dust back in on suits and equipment, in a low-humidity environment. That’s a condition in which small particles are more prone to becoming airborne and potentially inhaled, with crew members being exposed to fine respirable particles over many days, leading to a real possibility of developing cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses – even cancers – within the lifespan of a mission.

– Shaunna Morrison, Associate Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University

Some of this can potentially countered through technology options such as the use of suitports and the use of high-filtration HVAC systems incorporating advanced and magnetic filters (Mars dust having high concentrations of metals, as noted). However, the Martian Dust Limiting Working Group – a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, doctors and engineers looking at the issue of Martian dust exposure – conclude that a lot of the risk mitigation is going to be via continuous regime of medication from daily intakes of vitamins through to things like iodine doses and supplements, together with the use of cough medicines and bronchodilators to manage inevitable periods of short-term inhalation.

One of the major takeaways from the Mars Dust Working Group is that Martian dust is a real crew-health and engineering issue, but it is also a tractable one if it is treated as a design requirement from the beginning. The best strategy is prevention first. Keep as much dust as possible outside the habitat, remove it quickly when it gets in, monitor airborne particles, and incorporate medical countermeasures into daily routine so crews are not purely relying on them as purely as a possibly limited after-exposure treatment.

– Shaunna Morrison

Layers of dust accumulated on the deck of the Mars 2020 rover Perseverance after 5 years of operations on Mars, July 2026.

This, coupled with the need for daily routines of exercise and training – particularly during the transit periods to / from Mars – is why those embarking on the initial missions to Mars and engaged in establishing a possible permanent human presence there will need to be highly trained and highly disciplined. They will be facing a range of potential health hazards and and psychological challenges which  make the idea that anyone other than those who have undergone a broad range of physical and mental training and have the capacity to face the ardours of a 36-40 period of continuous living within a deadly environment can participate in such an undertaking a complete fiction.

Updates

Blue Origin Reveal NG-4 Explosion Cause

On May 28, 2026 during a pre-flight engine test while on the launch pad, the New Glenn rocket that was set to undertake the vehicle’s fourth flight exploded, destroying itself and the entire launch pad, and causing significant damage to the supporting infrastructure.

The moment of total destruction: the complete New Glenn rocket “stack” is destroyed on May 28, 2026 as 1,200 tonnes of propellants in the first stage tanks explode, sending a mushroom fire cloud into the sky over the Florida Space Coast. Via: AP News

Since that time, Blue Origin has been working to recover and rebuild the New Glenn launch facility at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), and also carry out an investigation into what caused the explosion, said to have been in the one kiloton TNT range.

with regards to the latter, on Wednesday August 5, 2026, Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp reported via social media that the cause of the explosion has now been identified and is being addressed:

The anomaly originated at the main oxygen valve on one of the BE-4 engines, which was later confirmed by hardware recovery and inspections. Extensive component-level and engine hotfire tests have been conducted to understand the failure mode better and inform mitigations.

– David Limp, Blue Origin CEO

Work at Launch Complex 36, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, destroyed in the NG-4 explosion, is proceeding apace. The current focus is on carefully dismantling the lightning conductor tower (centre), so that its damaged lower extremes can be replaced / repaired, prior to the tower being being rebuilt a a vehicle launch tower for future New Glenn 7×2 and 9×4 launches. Credit: Blue Origin

As a result of these tests and the forensic examination of vehicle wreckage, Blue Origin has made a series of modifications to the valve in question which will be incorporated in the production of future BE-4 motors and can be installed into the existing engines awaiting flight / reflight opportunities. This does not mean the FAA Mishap investigation into the explosion has been closed – additional fault tree analysis is continuing to determine if other factors may have been in play. However, Limp indicates that this is most like the key cause of the vehicle loss; as such, it would seem likely that the investigation will be formally closed in the next few months.

In the meantime, work on getting the launch facilities at CCSFS are now well in-hand, and Blue Origin remains of the opinion that the facilities and New Glenn could be ready to resume operations by the end of 2026.

Voyager 2: Instrument Shutdown Reprieve

Diagram of the Voyager spacecraft. Credit: NASA

It’s incredible to think that NASA’s twin Voyager spacecraft will, in a year’s time, mark the 50th anniversary of their respective launches (September and August 1977). The two craft are now so far from Earth (and travelling in interstellar space beyond the boundary of the solar system) it takes over a day for signals sent to or from them to be received.

Sadly, both vehicles are also dying – at least in terms of their available electrical power – as the reserves of plutonium within their radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) reach a point where the heat created through its nuclear decay becomes increasingly less able to generate the electricity required to power each vehicle’s science and other systems. As a result, NASA has been slowly turning off various instruments on each vehicle in the hopes of eking out power to keep the most useful (in interstellar space terms) functioning. In April 2026, for example, the Low-energy Charged Particles (LECP) experiment on Voyager 1 was shut down, leaving that craft with just 2 of its original 10 science systems functioning.

It had been expected that a similar move would have to be made with Voyager 2 in the second half 2026, to also leave it with only two functioning science instruments. However, in their latest piece of deep space engineering wizardry worthy of Montgomery Scott of the USS Enterprise, NASA engineers have worked out a means to re-route power through some of the spacecraft’s non-science systems at much lower levels than had previously been required, thus allowing power to be maintain to all three of the surviving science instruments.

Referred to by the mission’s engineering team as the “Big Bang” power change because of the risk it could figuratively blow up in their faces, this re-routing means that Voyager 2 now has enough electrical power capacity to run all three of its remaining instruments for up to a year before thought will have to again be given to shutting one down.

Voyager 2 is now being monitored to ensure there are no unwanted side-effects resulting from the change. Providing none are found, it is likely a similar operation will be performed across the 25.5 billion kilometres separating Earth from Voyager 1 so that it might continue to have sufficient electrical power to run its two surviving instruments for longer than had been anticipated.

Space Sunday: back to Betelgeuse and some updates

Posted on by Inara Pey
Betelgeuse is the red supergiant star in the shoulder of Orion. After decades of guessing, study and data-gathering, the long-theorised companion star thought to be orbiting Betelgeuse has been imaged – the bright dot in the left inset, marked by cross hairs. The circle marks were Betelgeuse should be in the image, but it has been removed (but shown in the centre inset), to make the companion more obvious in the image. Credit: ESO/M. Montargès et al. (background star field for illustration only, via skysurvey.org).

In 2019/2020 I covered, the excitement caused by the apparent and sudden dimming of Betelgeuse, the variable red supergiant in the constellation of Orion, when the star dropped from being the 10th brightest object in the night skies to the 27th before it recovered in early 2020. At the time there was much speculation on whether we were seeing the first signs the star had undergone a supernova explosion some 600 years ago (roughly the time it takes the light from the star to reach us). Obviously, this wasn’t the case, and the “great dimming” as it is now called was eventually pinned on something more mundane.

To put it simply, massive red giants like Betelgeuse are comparatively short-lived, in the order of 10-20 million years, rapidly burning through their stocks of hydrogen, and successively heavier elements in turn. As they do so – and before they reach a point where the fusion process can no longer be sustained as the energy to power it exceeds the amount of energy produced by it, causing the star’s core to collapse under its own gravity in less than a second and then immediately exploding outward again in a supernova – they go through some notable changes. Firstly, as each fusion cycle – helium, carbon, etc. – occurs at higher and higher temperatures, the red giant massively expands into a red supergiant. Secondly, they become violent, throwing off massive amounts of super-heated gas.

Betelgeuse, at around 8.5 million years of age is well into both of these phases; it expended its supply of hydrogen a very long time ago, expanding to its present size  of around 600-700 times bigger than the Sun. and it is periodically throwing off vast amounts of super-heated gas into space. With regards to the latter, it is now largely agreed that it was one of these clouds of material which caused the illusion of the “great /dimming”.

Thrown out by Betelgeuse so long ago it had long since cooled to the point it could not be seen from Earth, the cloud gradually drifted in front of our view of Betelgeuse during 2019, giving the impression the star was dimming dramatically. Then, as the dust then moved out of our line-of-sight with Betelgeuse in early 2020, the star appeared to return to its expected luminosity.

An artist’s impression of the 2019/2020 “great dimming”. At some point in the past, a large mass of superheat gas was ejected from Betelgeuse close to the direction in which Earth lay relative to the star (l). Over time, this material and cooled to a point where it could not longer be seen from Earth (2). In 2019, the cloud of dust came between Earth and our view of Betelgeuse, giving the impression the star had dramatically dimmed. Credit: Elizabeth Wheatley, STScl

As mundane as the explanation for the “great dimming” might be, it nevertheless caused a renewed interest in another of Betelgeuse’s mysteries: does it have a companion star orbiting it? It’s a question astronomers have been trying to answer for almost 100 years; but the very nature of Betelgeuse – its pulsing variability which makes even accurately determining its distance from Earth difficult (it’s thought to be about 640 light-years away, with a margin of error of +/- 146 light years); the huge and glowing masses of super-heated gases surrounding it, etc., – make finding any companion exceptionally difficult.

However, 2024 two separate studies carried were out in the wake of the “great dimming”, examining the gas clouds and the star’s coronasphere to see if there was evidence for either being affected the mass of a stellar object passing through them. Both studies yielded positive results but came to very different conclusions. The first study concluded the companion was either a white dwarf stellar remnant roughly the size of Earth or a neutron star some 10-20 km across. Either way, it likely had a mass roughly equitable to the Sun. However, the second study concluded the companion was almost equitable in size and mass to the Sun, and orbiting Betelgeuse so close it will likely be consumed by the larger star within 10,000 years.

Following up on these studies in 2025, a NASA team observed Betelgeuse using the Gemini North Observatory in Hawai’i. They pretty much confirmed the second of the 2024 studies: there did appear to be a companion star orbiting very close to Betelgeuse; however it appeared to be an F-type pre-main sequence star with roughly 1.5 to 1.6 times the mass of the Sun. Such was the NASA team’s confidence in their findings, they informally named the star: Siwarha, meaning “her bracelet” in Arabic, reflecting the fact that Betelgeuse means “the hand of al-Jawzā”. The name was subsequently accepted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).

A visualisation created by the National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory using data captured via the Gemini North Observatory in 2025, showing Betelgeuse, minus its coronasphere (which would otherwise obscure the companion star with its own brightness) in orange; and in blue, the light of its companion star: Siwarha. Credit: NASA Ames / NOIRLab

More recently, a team of astronomers used the data from the NASA study to calculate where Siwarha would be at the furthest distance its orbit would carry from Betelgeuse as seen from Earth, and the time at which this would occur. They used these calculations to direct the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) cluster in Chile to observe Betelgeuse at the specified time to try to both image Siwraha and gather more data that might be used to better characterise it.

The results were both satisfying and a little mystifying. On the one hand, Siwraha was exactly where the calculations said it would be, and the team were able to image it. However, the data gathered by the VLT’s instruments suggest Siwarha is a B-type main-sequence star some three times the mass of the Sun and between 2 and six times its size – in other words, very different to the star indicated by the NASA study.

There could be many reasons for this; as noted, trying to identify a stellar body which would effectively be little more than a marble compared to Betelgeuse’s soccer ball, and in so dynamic a region of space, isn’t easy. So as the VLT team note, more observations are required to better understand Siwarha’s nature. But in the meantime, it would seem that the 100-year-old question on whether or not Betelgeuse has a companion has been affirmatively answered.

An enlarged view of Siwarha showing its coronasphere (larger dot in the cross hairs and the bright dot of the star itself. Betelgeuse (which would be where the circle is located) has been digitally removed, to make Siwarha clearer. Credit: ESO/M. Montargès et al.

And what of the potential of Betelgeuse going supernova? Given its age and characteristics, astronomers agree that – if it hasn’t happened in the last 600-ish years – it will happen in the next 100,000. However, if it has happened within the last 600-ish years, our first indication will not be a sudden blossoming of light in the night (or even daytime, it will be that bright) sky. Instead, the first signs of its supernova will come invisibly in the form of a blast of neutrinos hitting a global network of detectors called the SuperNova Early Warning System (SNEWS) located deep underground.

This is because when the core of  a star destined to go supernova collapses, it generates a massive burst of neutrinos ahead of the actual supernova event. These travel outward at almost the speed of light, unhampered by the intervening matter of the the star. The light and energy created by the supernova, however, does have to propagate up through those layers of stellar matter, taking several hours to do so. Thus, this neutrino blast will reach us hours ahead of any light from the supernova, and SNEWS will be able to trace their point of origin.

Updates

The Rescuer in need of Rescuing

In June I covered the daring attempt to rescue a NASA satellite – the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory – from re-entering Earth’s atmosphere in October 2026 and burning up, by using another spacecraft to link up with it and gently push it up to a higher orbital altitude (see: Space Sunday: NASA – a rescue attempt, costs & infrastructure).

The mission got off to a good start. The rescue vehicle, built by Arizona-based Katalyst Space Technologies and called LINK, carried into space by a Pegasus XL air-launched rocket, successfully reached its initial orbit. Once there, it was able to deploy its solar panels for power and enter a period of check-out, calibration and commissioning before starting on its way to rendezvous with the Swift Observatory. However, on July 28th, NASA announced things had gone a little sideways: two out of the three reaction wheels on the spacecraft have ceased functioning, and its cold gas thrusters are also suffering a “loss of functionality”.

A set of an artist’s renderings of LINK in space and rendezvousing with Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, ready to gently push it up to a safe operating altitude before atmospheric drag causes it to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up. Credit: Katalyst Space

Reaction wheels are a means to precisely control  the orientation of satellites and spacecraft where the use of thrusters isn’t precise enough and / or could lead to excessive propellant depletion. The failure aboard LINK means it is now slowly spinning and only able to achieve intermittent communications with Earth. Further, the issue with the cold gas thrusters means that these cannot be reliably employed to slow the spin and correct LINK’s orientation.

At the time of writing, both Katalyst and NASA are working through the issues in order to recover the spacecraft. At the same time, and as a back-up measure, work is being carried out to reconfigure the software controlling LINK’s more powerful and propulsive ion thrusters so that if necessary, they might be used in a manner similar the vehicle’s cold gas thrusters, firing short, gentle bursts at appropriate times in the spacecraft’s slow tumble and bring it under control.

And in a twist of history, in 2022, the Swift Observatory also suffered a failure within its reaction wheels, causing NASA to place it in a “safe” mode until the matter was resolved and the observatory could resume normal operations. Hopefully, the same will be true for LINK.

Thar’ She Floats!

It’s probably more than apparent that I’m (one of many) not convinced that SpaceX’s Starship / Super Heavy system is actually a viable commercial launch system with a genuine ROI. It is most certainly not the vehicle that will “take humanity to Mars” or anywhere else in the wider solar system or realistically deliver on any of the other promises made by the SpaceX CEO. However, credit does fall where credit is due.

“I’m still floating better than I ever did. Looking like a true survivor, coming back from outer space” – Starship S40 in the Indian Ocean, 5 days after splashing down. Credit: SpaceX (and apologies to Elton John!)

As I covered in my previous Space Sunday update, the system completed its 13th integrated flight test (IFT-13) on July 24th which achieved the majority of its stated goals, potentially clearing the way for an orbital launch attempt with IFT-14. However, perhaps the most remarkable thing about IFT-13 is the fact that on splashing down in the Indian Ocean, Starship S40 didn’t exit this world by blowing up in the manner of its predecessors, but gently keeled over to float on its back.

And it is still afloat, which is equally remarkable, and speaks to its overall structural integrity. Having taken the time to careful study the vehicle following its splashdown – particularly the condition of its heat shield tiles – SpaceX has indicated it may try to attempt a recovery of the 52-metre long, 100-tonne vehicle by towing to Australia – a distance of around 1,200 km – where it can be transferred to a suitable ocean-going barge for transfer back to the United States!

ESCAPADE’s Long Road to Mars Captures the Moon and Earth

In November 2025, and on its second flight, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket sent two small NASA satellites built by Rocket Lab on behalf of NASA on their (indirect) way to Mars (see: Space Sunday: New Glenn “welds” it on second flight!).

The mission, called ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers) is intended to orbit Mars with the two satellites (informally called Gold and Blue) in a study of the planet’s magnetosphere and how solar wind contributed to the loss of most of the planet’s atmosphere. However, under the original plan, the two 1/2 tonne satellites were supposed to have been launched with NASA’s 16 Psyche mission in 2023, effectively hitching a ride with that spacecraft which would make a fly-by of Mars. However, changes to the 16 Psyche mission meant ESCAPADE could no long launch with it, and so it eventually departed Earth outside of the normal 26-month optimal Earth-Mars launch windows.

This meant that as launched the two satellites could not reach Mars directly. Instead, they were placed on a looping flight around the Sun-Earth L2 position before swinging back towards the Earth-Moon system in first of two fly-bys. This took place in early July 2026, and was used to calibrate the imaging systems on both vehicles, by capturing images of the Earth-Moon system in natural light, ultra violet and infrared.

The Earth (l) and the Moon (r) imaged by an ESCAPDE spacecraft during the July fly-by. Earth is 584,600 km from the spacecraft and the Moon 186,100 km. However, the false perspective of the image appears to suggest Earth and the Moon are roughly the same size, and Earth is the nearer of the two to the spacecraft. Credit: NASA

Both Earth and the Moon are 8% sunlit crescents in the image, with the Sun just out of frame to the observer’s right. The image also presents a comparison of albedo (reflectivity), with Earth is around 30% reflective overall thanks to sunlight being reflected off of the planet’s cloud tops. Meanwhile the Moon is a dull 7%.

When seen in the infrared, the difference is more apparent: even the side of Earth apparently in shadow shines with a temperature range of -43o and -10o, which might sound low in this age of global warming, but remember it is the night side of the planet and includes the temperature of the oceans there. By contrast, the Moon’s shadowed side is -173.3o.

ESCAPADE image showing Earth (l) and the Moon in infrared wavelengths. Credit: NASA

Currently, both satellites are on the outward leg of a shorter loop away from Earth. They will return in November and perform a close gravity-assist flyby which will set them on course to reach orbit around Mars in September 2027.

 

 

Space Sunday: Artemis 4 – to the south pole or not?

Posted on by Inara Pey
Either Blue Origin (left) and SpaceX (right) is due to provide the lunar lander for Artemis 4 – but should the landing take place in the Lunar South Polar Region?

Artemis 4 is currently scheduled to mark America’s return to the surface of the Moon in 2028. However, as I’ve noted in covering the programme in this column, there are several technical matters which need to be addressed – particularly if SpaceX remains the supplier of choice for the mission’s lunar lander – which could see the mission slip back to 2029. But now questions on exactly where Artemis 4 should be going.

Taken as The Artemis Project aims to send humans to the Lunar South Polar Region with the aim of establishing a base there, on the basis that base parts of the Moon’s polar regions remain in complete shadow all the time – notably the bottoms of craters – then it is possible there is accessible water ice to be found which could make lunar operations somewhat easier (providing water for drinking / cooling systems, air, ingredients for rocket motor propellants).

The overall goal of the mission is to primarily check-out what will be largely untested hardware, equipment and systems – both in terms of the lander vehicles and the space suits developed for Artemis. But do these necessarily need to be tested using a mission to the Lunar South Polar region? Could they not equally be carried out using a more equatorial landing zone, one which involves less complexity in its execution – and potentially less risk?

Map of candidate landing regions in the Artemis exploration zone (90°S to 84°S), as identified by NASA, 2022 and 2024. Credit: Lunar and Planetary Institute

Landing at the lunar equator offers predictable solar illumination, simplified orbital dynamics, and reduced communication blackout risks compared to the high-latitude Lunar South Polar Region. While much of the latter does experience near-continuous daylight, its chaotic topography with dramatic elevation changes coupled with a low-angle solar elevation (thus resulting in areas remaining in deep shadow, even outside of craters) present severe hazards for landing craft and extravehicular operations.

Thus, by targeting the more “known” regions of the Moon, such as Mare Imbrium (in which Apollo 17 landed) and Mare Tranquillitatis (Apollo 11), Artemis 4 could operate in a somewhat more predictable operational envelope than would be the case with a South Polar Region landing. This would potentially allow for better initial testing of guidance, control, automated landing systems and communications systems.

The latest voice to be heard advocating for this approach is that of Artemis 2 pilot, Victor Glover, who likened the switch to a more stepwise approach to lunar operations. For example, in the 1960s, NASA initially tested the Apollo Command and Service Module in Earth orbit (Apollo 7), then in a flight around the Moon (Apollo 8), then the lunar lander was tested in Earth orbit (Apollo 9) and then on a non-landing voyage to the Moon where its decent / ascent capabilities could be tested in lunar conditions (Apollo 10). Further, the Apollo missions grew in complexity, making targeting more difficult landing sites more acceptable as experience was gained from earlier missions and the capabilities of the vehicles and their systems became more clearly understood.

Credit: Lunar and Planetary Institute

By contrast, Artemis effective jumps: from an uncrewed cislunar test of the Orion Earth-Moon-Earth vehicle (Artemis 1) to a crewed cislunar test of Orion (Artemis 2) to a semi-orbital test of the landing vehicles in Earth orbit (Artemis 3 – which will not even be a test of either vehicle’s flight and propulsion systems) to attempting a landing in a very challenging environment; so there is much to be said for revising efforts.

As well as lowering the technical complexity of the initial mission, Glover raises a health reason. What if a crew member suffers and injury or medical situation requiring evacuation to Earth? With Apollo, the Command and Service Module orbited between 100 and 300 km above the lunar surface. This made getting back to it aboard the lunar lander in an emergency, and it would be in a position to rendezvous with the ascend lander every few orbits, and likewise be able to more readily to break orbit and return to Earth.

Missions to the Lunar South Polar Regions require a more complex, propellant-intensive flight, culminating in an Elliptical Polar Orbit with Coplanar Line of Apsides (EPO/coLA). Because more propellant is required, this orbit must vary between 100 and 6,500 km above the Earth, as the high altitude is required for Orion to be able to break orbit and return to Earth; lower than this, and it could have insufficient fuel remaining to escape the Moon.

NASA Astronaut and mission pilot for Artemis 2, victor Glover. Credit: NASA

Because of its range, this EPO/coLA orbit means that a rendezvous between Orion and an ascending lander can only happen once every couple of days or so. By switching to a more equatorial landing zone, propellant usage is reduced, making Orion more capable of entering a more circular, lower orbit of the Moon, thus presenting more opportunities for an emergency rendezvous with the lander should this be required. Of course, this doesn’t solve the issue of emergency evacuations on missions are Artemis 4; what it does mean is that the risks associated with the “first time” nature of Artemis 4 might be further reduced.

In terms of missions beyond Artemis 4, SpaceX have already suggested that their massive Starship-derived land could actually take Orion to the Moon if the two were to dock in Earth orbit. This would conserve Orion’s propellant, potentially allowing the elliptical nature of the EPO/coLA orbit to be reduced, again offering more opportunities for emergency rendezvous in lunar orbit. Similarly, the switch to using a modified Vulcan-Centaur booster and the upper stage of the SLS rocket, replacing the current Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) could also allow the EPO/coLA orbit range to be reduced, again allowing windows for Orion / lander rendezvous to be increased.

Finally, Glover (and others) note that the political onus on Artemis 4 is increasingly about “beating the Chinese” rather than achieving science / engineering goals. If this is the case, then a mission to land within the Moon’s more familiar equatorial regions, building on all of the knowledge gained on such mission during Apollo, would help make that goal easier by removing several levels of complexity to Artemis 4.

Thus far, NASA management has given no indication any such shift will be made, but in many respects it does fit with a more step-by-step approach to lunar operations they have adopted since the start of 2026 .

Starship IFT-13: More of the Same, but with Twists

On July 24th, SpaceX completed the 13th integrated flight test (IFT) of its Starship / Super Heavy booster combination, flying the “version 3” of each vehicle for the second time, the fist having been in May 2026.

A camera mounted on one of the two forward flaps of Starship S40 looks back down the length of the vehicle and its Super Heavy booster towards the Boca Chica launch site as IFT-13 approaches max-Q following launch on July 24, 2026. Credit: SpaceX

In broad terms, the flight was something of re-run of the past few missions: launch, get Starship to sub-orbital velocity / altitude, return the Super Heavy booster for a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, with the Starship deploying a payload before initiating a test-restart of one of its engines and then making a re-entry and splashdown in the Indian Ocean not all of which had been achieved through IFT-10 through 12.

An initial attempt to launch the flight had been made on July 16th, but was halted by on-board systems when four of the booster’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Subsequent analysis revealed that due to the way the engines are chilled, ice had formed within those four engines, choking them at start-up. This resulted in two of the engines having to be swapped-out on the pad. A second Attempt on July 23rd was scrubbed as cloud would have obscured observations of the vehicle’s ascent.

On July 24th, things went remarkably smoothly, with the raw power of the Raptor 3 engines clearly seen – it took just sixty seconds for the booster and ship to go from the launch platform to supersonic speed and then pass through max-Q (the point of highest dynamic stress on the vehicles during ascent).

As the Super Heavy booster performs its boost-back flip, a camera on its hull captures Starship S40 with all six engines lit. Credit: SpaceX

Hot staging took place with the booster shutting down all but five of its engines as the ship fired-up its six engines. On separation, the booster immediately vectored away from the ascending Starship, avoiding the issue which led to a failure with the boost-back engine burn seen with IFT-12 in May. However, the booster did suffer a engine re-start failure just before a planned splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, when only 9 of the anticipated 13 engines restarted – and four of those immediately shut down again and the booster hit the water at an estimated 160 km/h. This and the ice issues of July 16th suggest the Raptor 3 still needs refinement.

Starship S40, however, went on to achieve sub-orbital flight, deployed its payload, finally carried out a restart of an engine (something the last several flights have tried and failed to achieve, and which forms a vital part of vehicle operations) and then made a perfect re-entry into, and passage through, the denser atmosphere. Finally, it successfully re-lit three engines, flipped itself vertically to make a gentle landing in the Indian Ocean. So gentle, in fact, it didn’t explode; it gently tipped over on its back to float on the ocean, small fires licking around the hull caused by vented gases. This obliging allowed the aerial drone patrolling the landing zone to capture video of the vehicle’s re-entry heat shield for analysis.

The key difference between this mission and the earlier payload carrying sub-orbital flights lay in the fact that this time, and actual working payload was carried aloft in the form of 20 Starlink v3 satellites.

A flap-mounted camera on StarshipS40 captures some of the deployed Starlink satellites reflecting sunlight (white) and seemingly firing their icon thrusters (blue dots). Credit: SpaceX

At up to 2 tonnes each, and with a span of 15 metres with their solar arrays open, the Starlink v3 is a veritable monster compared to the v1 (300 kg) and v2 (600 kg) variants and offers gigabit levels of data transfer rates.

These satellites are seen as vital to Starlink’s future, and are wholly dependent on the Starship / Super Heavy combination to launch them, as they are too big and bulky to be launched en-masse by Falcon 9 (hence why SpaceX is almost solely focused on getting Starship working with a Starlink deployment system rather than building it capable of delivering a range of payloads to orbit – in fact, there is an argument to make that Starlink is Starship’s only viable payload, but that’s for another article).

Starship S20 “bellyflops” through the atmosphere after re-entry, the four and aft flaps maintaining its aerodynamic control. Credit: SpaceX

None of the deployed Starlink units survived long – just 20 minutes given they were sub-orbital as well. However, this was long enough for SpaceX to test their ion engines and communications capabilities, hooking them into the main Starlink network and testing their laser communications systems among themselves.

Six of the satellites were fitted with cameras and spotlights, and were tasked with following the starship vehicle down through re-entry, filming its manoeuvres and interactions with the upper atmosphere. At the time of writing, none of that footage, if successfully relayed to Earth, has been released.

Almost 2 minutes after splashing down vertical and then toppling into the sea, S20 floats as fires from vents gases burn around parts of it. Credit: SpaceX

Overall, IFT-13 was a step forward from the rinse-wash-repeat status of the last few Starship / Super Heavy flights. The system still has a long way to go before it can be said to have met even its baseline requirements (launch, deploy, return and capture for re-use), and even longer to go in terms of actually proving it is viable for anything other than Starlink launches. However, subject to the on-going issues with the Raptor 3 motors, SpaceX have indicated the 14th flight might actually be an attempt to reach orbit – possibly with an attempt to catch the orbital vehicle on its return.

Psyche’s Time-Lapse of Mars

On May 15th, 2026 NASA’s Psyche spacecraft swung by Mars, using the planet in a gravity-assist manoeuvre to help propel it on its way to its intended target, the M-type (indicating it has a high metallic content) asteroid 16 Psyche, which it will reach in 2029.

The fly-by marked the mid-point in the spacecraft’s journey, and I covered it and the overall Psyche mission just after it happened. However, earlier in July NASA issued a time-lapse video of the encounter, stitched together from individual images captured by the spacecraft’s imagining system between May 2nd and May 31st.

Approaching from a “high phase” angle relative to the Sun, Psyche initially reveals Mars as a thin crescent, only around 4% of its surface visible. This rapidly grows as the spacecraft sweeps down towards the planet’s northern hemisphere, features somewhat blurred, but with craters and clouds visible before Psyche arcs over the very heavily cratered southern hemisphere, closing to within 4,609 km of the planet’s surface before heading back into space, speeding towards the asteroid belt and 16 Psyche with 1,600 km/h more velocity than when it approached at Mars.

While the fly-by didn’t add much to the masses of data already gathered on Mars, it did serve a second important function for the Psyche mission: by aiming Psyche’s suite of instruments at a well-studied world, mission engineers were able to properly calibrate and validate the spacecraft’s major science instruments ahead of its encounter with 16 Psyche.

Space Sunday: Rocket Lab’s rise; visiting an asteroid and a planet’s atmosphere

Posted on by Inara Pey
Rocket Lab: the launch of VICTUS HAZE, the upper stage and payload fairings of the Electron rocket; the Pioneer Demonstrator payload. Credit: Rocket Lab

Rocket Lab, the New Zealand / US company, has made a name for itself in the smallsat market – possibly the fastest growing sector of the space industry – both as a launch provider via its Electron rocket (around US $7.5 million per launch). It’s one of the most successful commercial space companies going (although still to consistently earn a profit), and it is growing its reputation both in the commercial sector and in support of US government-related launches.

In this latter regard, in June 2026, the company set a new benchmark for military responsive space operations under the United States Space Force’s (USSF) TacRS – TACtical Responsive Space – programme. This is a programme designed to place satellites into orbit on short notice during a crisis. VICTUS HAZE, the test involving Rocket Lab, tested the concept under demanding timelines and cleared several milestones well ahead of schedule.

In particular, the company was able to take a payload – their Pioneer demonstrator of a satellite they have been specifically developing to meet USSF requirements – from storage through ground check-out, fuelling and integration into a launch vehicle and thence to orbit in under 17 hours, beating the previous TacRS test mission’s record by 10 hours. Key to this was Rocket Lab’s ability to complete all trajectory guidance calculations in order for Pioneer to rendezvous with its intended target in just 4 hours, including coordinating all the required ground tracking stations around the world.

While the launch didn’t shave time off of the satellite’s on-orbit initialisation process, it still meant that within 3 days of launch, the satellite was ready to begin rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) with a target a vehicle in a simulation of chasing down and observing a Chinese satellite which had itself been launched in order to snoop on an orbital asset operated by a western nation.

The success with VICTUS HAZE further enhanced Rocket Lab’s status as a company that delivers on its promises. Whilst specialising in the smallsat market – perhaps the fastest-growing sector of the commercial space industry – using its Electron rocket putting small payloads in orbit for around US $7.5 million a shot, the company is far more than a launch provider.

As well as providing launch vehicles for customers, Rocket Lab has a dedicated satellite development capability enables the company to provide the payloads customers are seeking to fly. Further, and as demonstrated by Victus Haze, Rocket Lab has the ability to manage and co-ordinate satellites in orbit on their client’s behalf – Pioneer remaining under Rocket Lab’s operational control on behalf of US Space Command. Thus, the company is able to provide a full vertical stack of satellite development, launch and operational capabilities to customers.

While Electron, with its current maximum payload capacity of 300 kilos is the most well-known of the company’s rockets, it is not the only vehicle Rocket Lab operates. There is also the Electron-derived HASTE vehicle, specifically designed for flight test opportunities in the hypersonic and suborbital system technology development field.

The DART AE demonstrator, built for the US DoD by Australian company Hypersonix, mounted on its launch bus ahead of integration into a Rocket Lab HASTE launcher. Credit: Rocket Lab / Hypersonix

A HASTE vehicle was most recently used in February 2026 to lift the DART AE hypersonic demonstrator to a release altitude where it could test advanced propulsion, materials, sensors and guidance systems under real hypersonic flight conditions (5x the speed of sound). Built by Australia’s Hypersonix on behalf of the US DoD, a unique part of DART’s design is that the scramjet engine it uses is 3D printed.

In a typical twist of humour reflective of Rocket Lab’s CEO, New Zealander Sir Peter Beck, the rocket used to successfully launch and deploy DART AE for its (also successful) test flight was called That’s Not a Knife – a reference to an iconic scene in the film Crocodile Dundee, thus referencing the Australian heritage of hypersonic vehicle.

As I’ve reported on several times in these pages, Rocket Lab is also developing a new reusable medium-lift launch vehicle (MLLV) called Neutron. This is due to make its maiden flight later in 2026, and has already gained worldwide recognition for it novel approach to payload carrying.

An artist’s rendering of Rocket Lab’s Neutron rocket and its “Hungry Hippo” payload doors. Credit: Rocket Lab

Rather than have the payload and the upper stage of the rocket mounted on top of the first stage, they are mounted inside the rocket’s first stage behind a pair of clamshell doors which will open up to release both – giving them the nickname of the “Hungry Hippo” – before closing to allow the complete booster to return to Earth.

Currently, Neutron is expected to make its maiden flight later in 2026, despite the loss of a propellant tank intended for the first flight-ready vehicle during pressure tests in January, 2026. The company has reported that it is now entering into vehicle integration, ground-testing of both the rocket’s main Archimedes engines and the vacuum-optimised version used in its upper stage is proceeding, and the construction of the new Neutron- capable launch pad at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) within NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia is complete.

A Rocket Lab Archimedes methlox (methane / liquid oxygen) engine designed for the company’s Neutron rocket, undergoing testing at NASA’s Stennis Space Centre, Mississippi. Credit: Rocket Lab

Through its unique design and the reusability of its first stage, Neutron will be able to deliver up to 13 tonnes to low-Earth orbit with the first stage reused. This might not sound much compared to Blue Origin’s New Glenn or SpaceX Falcon Heavy, but it actually places Neutron right in the sweet spot of launch capabilities: able to meet requirements of 98% of all commercial payloads through until the end of 2029 (were all those contracts up for grabs). Thus, it is well-placed to compete not only with the behemoths in the market (which have to wait around until they have sufficient payload to make launches reasonably cost-effective), but very much directly against SpaceX Falcon 9.

At the time of writing, Rocket Lab is attempting to acquire Iridium Communications for some US $8 billion. Iridium operates a network of 80 satellites in near-polar orbits (66 operational, 14 in-orbit back-ups). This constellation provides a globe-spanning network for voice and data communication from handheld satellite phones, satellite messenger communication devices and integrated transceivers, as well as for two-way satellite messaging service from supported mobile phones.

The Iridium network provides global coverage and communications relay. Credit: unknown

If the deal goes through, it will mean Rocket lab has entered another area of competition with SpaceX, Amazon and OneWeb – one which comes with an already established satellite network and 2.54 million billable subscribers (which is well short of Starlink’s 10 million). In addition, Iridium provides services for the US government, airlines, cruise ship and shipping operators. Perhaps most significantly, the Iridium system is certified for use in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and for Future Air Navigation System (FANS) data links, neither of which is supported by the other providers, thus putting Rocket Lab in a unique position to harness new customers.

All of which speaks to a lot for a little rocket company that decided it can.

1 Launch, 1 Billion Kilometres and a Rendezvous

In May 2025, China launched one of its most ambitious missions so far: sending a robotic vehicle to rendezvous, land on and gather samples from a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) and then return those samples to Earth.

It’s not the first time there has been such a mission, both NASA’s OSIRIS-REx and Japan’s Hayabusa and Hayabusa2, have all gathered samples from near-Earth objects; however for China, Tianwen-2 (“’Heavenly Questions-2”) is an ambitious step considering the relative age of their space programme.

The target of the mission is 469219 Kamoʻoalewaa (also known as 2016 HO3), what is called a quasi-satellite because there are periods in its orbit around the Sun where it passes close enough to Earth to become temporarily caught by Earth’s gravity, orbits the planet numerous times whilst continuing along its orbit around the Sun before moving off once more until the next time its orbit and that of Earth intersect. What makes 469219 Kamoʻoalewaa particularly interesting for study is that it is believed to be a piece of our Moon ejected into space when an impact created the crater Giordano Bruno on the lunar far side.

Orbit of asteroid 469219 Kamoʻoalewa showing it’s quasi-moon nature around Earth. Credit: NASA
Rendezvousing with such an object might sound relatively simple compared to sending a probe to somewhere like Mars. However, orbital mechanics mean that doing either is a complex task – particularly in the case of 469219 Kamoʻoalewaa, about which relatively little was known in terms of trajectory when the mission launched. In all, it took over a year for Tianwen-2 to close on the asteroid with frequent course corrections guided using observations from Earth, travelling 1 billion kilometres in the process.

In early June, the probe was able to detect the tiny asteroid – just 27.4 metres across – directly, rather than relying on guidance from Earth. This allowed it to initiate a capture control manoeuvre, settling into trajectory alongside that of the asteroid, matching its orbital path rather than simply crossing it. Through the first part of June, the probe gently closed the distance between itself and the asteroid to just 2,000 kilometres.

By July 2nd, 2026, Tianwen 2 had reached an altitude of 20 km above the asteroid, allowing it to commence its primary science mission. The vehicle will now carry out an intensive survey of the asteroid as it gradually decreases the separation between them until at 300m, with a sampling site determined, Tianwen-2 will attempt to touch-down briefly on the asteroid’s surface and gather around 100 grams of material.

469219 Kamoʻoalewa imaged by Tianwen-2 on 2 July 2026 from a distance of 20 km. Credit: CNSA

If successful, this will be the first time a spacecraft from Earth has used an anchor-and-attach approach method to physically fix itself on an asteroid to gather samples. Both of the Hayabusa missions and OSIRIS-REx used touch-and-go, essentially closing to a point were a sampler gathering device could make contact with the target for long enough – a couple of seconds – to gather a sample before springs in the device compressed by the mass of the spacecraft released to push it away. However, in case Tianwen 2’s anchor and attach mechanism proves unsuitable, the craft also has a touch-and-go capability for sample acquisition.

Following sample gathering, Tianwen-2 will return to Earth, ejecting its payload before heading back out into space for a rendezvous comet 311P/PanSTARRS, which it will reach in 2035.

Astronomers Discover 1st Atmosphere around an Earth-sized Planet in a Star’s Habitable Zone

LHS 1140 is a red dwarf star appearing in the constellation of Cetus (the Whale), approximately 48.8 light-years from our own star. It has 18.4% the mass of the Sun and is 21% of its radius. It is also the parent to two exoplanets – LHS 1140 b and LHS 1140 c.

Of these, LHS 1140 b, is classified a “super Earth”, being roughly 70% larger in radius than Earth and with a mass 5.6 times greater. It orbits very close to its parent star – some 0.095 AU – taking just 24.74 terrestrial days to complete an orbit. Despite this, the planet sits within the habitable zone for 1140, and because of the star’s small size, it receives around 0.43 times the incident flux – the amount of radiant energy received by a surface per unit area, typically expressed in watts per square meter (W/m²) as Earth does.

For some time since its discovery in 2017, observations of LHS 1140 b during its transits in front of its parent star have suggested one of two things: either it is a large rocky world with an atmosphere and perhaps 19% of its surface being water; or it might be a mini-Neptune with a really dense, hydrogen-rich atmosphere. To try to determine which of these might be true, in September 2024 a team of astronomers carried out a 6.5 hour observation of the planet’s transit in front of its star using the Magellan Clay Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile. During this period, the team measured an excess absorption feature consistent with helium, which they interpreted as a hydrodynamic atmospheric outflow driven by stellar X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet heating.

In other words they detected both an outflow of helium from the planet, indicating it has a potentially helium-rich atmospheric envelope consistent with a world. A further study in 2025 further resulted in measurements consistent with the September 2024 study, minus no excess helium absorption, suggesting the planet’s atmosphere is relatively stable atmosphere which is not constantly outgassing under the influence of a solar wind from its parent star. That the atmosphere appears to be predominantly helium also means the indications that water could exist on the planet’s surface are likely accurate.

An artist’s impression of the limb of LHS 1140 b and its parent star, LHS 1140. Credit: ESO

Of course, being classified “Earth like” and having an atmosphere does not mean there is life on LHS 1140 b – nor does the fact it sits within its star’s habitable zone. However, all of the data gathered suggests that LHS-1140 b has a temperature at least equitable to Earth’s Polar Regions so the water on its surface could well be in part liquid, rather than totally frozen; and if the atmosphere is sufficiently dense, then surface conditions could be a lot warmer, and so more liquid water might be present.

Two of the key determinants in assessing whether a planet like LHS 1140 might be capable of supporting life once it has found to have an atmosphere and the potential for liquid water are: how active is the parent star, and whether the planet is tidally locked.

Most red dwarf stars tend to be violent places; their small size means they suffer powerful convection currents which can led to violent flaring and other outbursts fully capable of ripping the atmosphere away from a planet as close to it as LHS 1140 b is to its parent. However, at an age close to that of our own Sun, LHS1140 is surprisingly clam for its size, meaning there is a good chance of LHS-1140 b retaining its atmosphere for long enough for life to potentially take hold.

Tidally locked refers to a planet being so close to its star that it ceases rotating about its own axis and instead keeps the same side facing the star (like the Moon keeps its same face towards Earth). In these situations, it means that one side of the planet is in perpetual sunlight whilst the other is constantly exposed to space and thus to freezing. This can lead to the planet have extreme weather, particularly along the terminator between the day and night sides of the planet. However, such conditions don’t necessary rule out such a place supporting life – but it does make it harder.

As such, there is still a lot more that needs to be understood about LHS 1140 b, but the fact we now have what appears to be the first direct evidence of an atmosphere around another world means we will likely be able to find others.