Tag: Spaceflight

It’s been a good while since I offered any updates on the work of NASA’s Curiosity rover on Mars, which is a bit of a shame given it was my reporting on Curiosity’s arrival and mission on Mars which eventually morphed into Space Sunday.

Curiosity is now 13 years and eight months into its mission on Mars (over 14 years since its launch from Earth), and it is still going strong. Such is the amount of data still being returned by the rover’s exploration of Gale Crater and, specifically, the great mound of Aeolis Mons at its centre (which NASA unofficially calls “Mount Sharp”), Earth-based review and analysis of its findings is running somewhat behind.

Take two papers on Curiosity’s findings published in April 2026, for example. They relate to data gathered by Curiosity in 2020 and 2022. However, their individual findings both confirm elements of our understanding of Gale Crater’s history and open the door to some intriguing possibilities when it comes to past microbial life on Mars.

The first paper, Diverse organic molecules on Mars revealed by the first SAM TMAH experiment, examines the data gathered by the rover in 2020 whilst examining a rock sample on the slopes of “Mount Sharp” scientists had dubbed “Mary Anning”. This examination revealed the clay-bearing sandstone rock contained no fewer than 21 organic compounds, seven of which had been detected for the first time. Together, they stand as the single largest and most diverse collection of organic compounds to be found in one location on Mars.

To be clear, “organic compounds” should not be taken to mean “evidence of life” – organics can be formed through inorganic processes as well as organic ones. Further, exactly what caused the formation of these compounds in so close proximity to one another is unknown; whilst they could be the result of mineral and chemical interactions with rock, they equally might have been deposited on “Mount Sharp” as a result of a meteorite impact; we just don’t know.

However, what is interesting about these compounds is the fact that they were detected within a surface rock that has been around perhaps for 3.5 billion years, despite the rock being bombarded by solar radiation and subject to wind erosion, etc.. This alone suggests that whilst overwhelmingly hostile to biological processes we’re familiar with, Mars could preserve the biosignatures of any Martian microbes which might have once been present on the planet.

In this regard, the samples gathered and analysed by Curiosity have been shown to contain methyl benzoate. A complex compound often associated with organics (but again can be formed by both organic or inorganic processes); the fact that such a complex ester group compound is present within the rock does strengthen the argument that Mars might yet preserve evidence of past life on Mars.

What’s more – and again with the inorganic / organic caveat – the team behind the paper confirmed the samples taken from “Mary Anning” contains nitrogen heterocycles. These are rings of nitrogen-bearing carbon atoms which here on Earth are considered precursors of RNA and DNA. All of which adds up to a remarking set of findings.

The second paper, Amapari Marker Band Metal-Enrichments: Potential Mechanisms and Implications for Surface and Subsurface Water and Weathering in Gale Crater; examines the case for water in Gale Crater using the “bathtub ring” of the Amapari Marker.

The latter is a boundary layer extending for tens of kilometres around the upper reaches of “Mount Sharp” to the point of being visible from orbit using the right equipment. It is believed to form the boundary between the upper limits reached by waters which had formed multiple lakes within the crater during the planet’s warmer, wet periods of its early history, and the upper portion of “Mount Sharp” which was never immersed in water.

Within the Amapari Marker, Curiosity found deposits of compounds and – particularly – metals which were deposited en masse, so to speak, as the waters retreated back down into Gale Crater after reaching this highest point of their extent. Hence the term “bathtub ring”: the Amapari Marker might be thought of as resembling the ring of grime left around the sides of a bathtub once the water has been drained following a particularly mucky bath.

Such banding or layer markers are common on Earth as well, and are referred to as redox (REDuction OXidation) reactions. These have been shown to create metals such as iron, zinc, manganese and similar precipitate out of water – which are exactly the irons found in the Amapari Marker in Gale Crater. Thus, not only does this further demonstrate the likeliness that Gale Crater was one home to lakes of considerable depth (“Mount Sharp” is some 5 kilometres high, with the walls of the crater reaching similar heights, allowing for lakes of at least a kilometre or two in depth), it also suggests the potential for the lake to potentially having been inhabitable by Martian microbes.

This is because microbes can mediate redox reactions, and in some cases create thicker deposits than abiotic reactions; deposits that could be even more useful as a source of energy for subsequent colonies of microbes. However, this is, again, only a supposition; there are many questions about the overall conditions within Gale Crater still to be answered. These include matters of Water-to-rock ratios, lake depth, and atmospheric concentrations of O2 during transient events; all make it extremely difficult to draw any single conclusion relating to the lakes in the crater, the deposits found within the Amapari Layer what various combinations of the answers to these questions (if they could be answered) it might mean for the ancient habitability of Mars.

Even so, the findings of these papers again demonstrate how intriguing Mars is.

In Brief

New Glenn Update

In my previous Space Sunday article, I covered the semi-successful Blue Origin NG-3 launch – the third flight of the impressive New Glenn heavy-lift launch vehicle, together with the recovery of the first stage Never Tell Me the Odds as it made its second flight (albeit with new engines). The mission was semi-successful as the upper stage of the booster suffered an anomaly which stranded the BlueBird 7 communications satellite payload in the wrong orbit.

Due to the failure of the upper stage, and as expected, on April 22nd, 2026, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which oversees commercial launch operations in the US, announced that New Glenn is grounded until a Blue Origin-led investigation can determine the root cause of the issue.

In this, Blue Origin is already a little ahead of the curve: during the NG-3 mission, telemetry indicated that during an initial burn of the upper stage’s engines, one of the two BE-3U motors failed to produce sufficient thrust for the burn to be properly completed, and as a precaution against total vehicle and payload loss, the burn was curtailed and the second required engine burn cancelled, thus leaving BlueBird 7 stranded in the wrong orbit.

The question now is whether the issue with the BE-3U motor is something restricted to that particular motor or something endemic to the entire production of BE-3Us. Determining this, and what – if anything – needs to be done to fix issue, will determine how long New Glenn remains grounded.

Getting the matter sorted is a priority for Blue Origin. They have four more New Glenn launches planned for 2026. Two of these are commercial (which could slip somewhat easily) and two government-related. One of the latter is a “rideshare” mission of several payloads (NG-7), including a technology demonstrator for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). This had been due to launch almost a year ago on a Firefly Alpha rocket, but the NRO opted to move it to another launch vehicle when in April 2025, Firefly suffered its fourth full or partial failure in just seven launches. As such, the NRO might again get nervous if New Glenn is subject to an extended grounding.

More importantly for Blue Origin is the NG-5 launch. This is slated to carry the company’s Blue Moon Pathfinder lander mission to the Moon. Pathfinder, as I’ve noted in past Space Sunday pieces, is a critical demonstration of significant technologies to be used within both Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 and Mark 2 cargo / crew lunar landers. As such, any significant delay in its flight could have repercussions for the Blue Moon lander programme as a whole at a time when both Blue Origin and SpaceX are under pressure from NASA to demonstrate they can have human landing systems available to meet the planned Artemis 4 mission of 2028.

NASA: Artemis 3, OIG Concerns and Budget Fight-Back

NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, home to the Space Launch System (SLS) production line, rolled out the core stage of the booster that will launch the Artemis 3 mission to Earth orbit in 2027.

Containing the liquid hydrogen tank, liquid oxygen tank, intertank, and forward skirt, the core stage is the bright orange element of the SLS, which at its upper end will be fitted with the stage adaptor for the ICPS upper stage, and at its lower end, the four RS-25 motors that will power the course stage and their housing. Its roll-out at Michoud marks the start of its journey by barge to Kennedy Space Centre, Florida, where it will be integrated with the rest of the 3elements required for the mission, including the Orion Multiple-Purpose Crew Vehicle which will contain the crew for the mission.

Artemis 3 was originally going to be the first lunar landing mission for Project Artemis, however, earlier in 2026, the mission was re-targeted as an Earth-orbital test of one or both of the proposed crewed landing craft being developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX, and assess whether either / both are fit for purpose ahead of any lunar-focused missions; as such it is a crucial stepping stone for Artemis.

In this, the roll-out of the new SLS core stage is seen by NASA as a sign that it is on course to meet its current Artemis schedule: orbital HLS testing in 2027 and first crewed landing in 2028. However, the agency’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) sees things differently.

On April 20th, the OIG – responsible for overseeing all of NASA’s activities in terms of fiscal responsibility, preventing mismanagement, identifying project shortfalls, and generally auditing NASA programmes in terms of their overall progress / readiness – issued a further report indicating that the Artemis programme is once again at risk of delay due to continued issues with the development of the new spacesuits Artemis crews are to use on the surface of the Moon.

Work on the new suits – those currently in use aboard the International Space Station, whilst derived from the Apollo space suits, are unsuitable for lunar use – commenced in the 20-teens and has largely been a source of embarrassment to NASA. Just after the first prototype suit was revealed to the public to much fanfare in 2019, it was found to be unfit for purpose and abandoned.

In 2022, NASA contracted veteran space suit manufacturer Collins LLC (responsible for both the Apollo and ISS space suits) and newcomer Axiom to develop new space suits – but with a twist: the new suits would have to be capable of sustained operations on the lunar surface and also – through the integration of different components / elements during the manufacture of specific suits – for use on the ISS.

Although this sounded reasonable, it actually caused Collins LLC to drop out of the contract in 2024 due to complexities involved in developing such a suit system in a relatively short time frame. Axiom has continued its own suit development, and has offered a number of positive-sounding updates on progress. However, according to the OIG report, the reality with the Axiom suit is somewhat different: it is already running two years behind schedule, in part due to the requirement for the same basic suit having to be adaptable for two very different uses, and now looks likely to slip a further year, meaning it will not be ready for use until 2031.

Both NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and Axiom offered statements countering the OIG report when it appeared, restating commitments to the 2028 crewed landing. However, the OIG has a track record of being far more accurate in its assessments of the readiness of projects than NASA in meeting target dates for those same projects. As such this report could come back to bite NASA if it proves accurate.

In the meantime, the battle over NASA’s future budget has once more ignited. As I’ve previously reported, in 2025, the Trump Administration sought to reduce NASA’s modest budget by 23% in 2026, including cutting the agency’s science budget by 47%. Ultimately, the House and the Senate rejected such a drastic cut – so the Trump Administration has now simply added the same cuts to its planned 2027 fiscal year budget. In response, the House and Senate – and on both sides of their respective aisles are once again pushing back.

Both the president and Congress have provided explicit direction for NASA to undertake a range of activities, from exploration and science to aeronautics research. We must ensure that NASA is funded at a level that allows it to pursue those missions. I simply do not believe that this budget proposal is capable of supporting what President Trump himself has directed the agency to accomplish over the course of his two terms, nor what Congress has directed by law.

– Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chair man, U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, April 22nd, 2026.

Babin, with the support of Democrats and Republicans on his committee goes on to point out that while American’s spiralling national debt of some US $38.889 trillion or US $116,065 per US citizen (and in a good part fuelled by the fiscal / foreign policies of the current Administration) is of major concern, cutting NASA’s budget amounts to mere “penny-pinching” than it does speak to an attempt to reign-in spending, and is a move that will further damage US leadership in science and technology.

On Wednesday April 1st, 2026, NASA’s Artemis 2 mission launched on a 10-day cruise to the Moon and back (with time initially spent in Earth orbit), carrying a crew of four to test the capabilities and facilities of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The mission was a key preparatory step to send crews to the surface of the Moon, starting with the flight of Artemis 4, currently targeting a 2028 launch.

In the first part of this 2-part series I covered Artemis 2 from launch to TLI. Here I complete the voyage in summary form.

Whilst marked by a number of on-going space health experiments, video calls to Earth and performing sundry tasks and s few minor fixes, the outward trip from Earth to the Moon was pretty much a claim affair. A 17.5 second mid-course correction manoeuvre was performed automatically by Integrity, the Orion spacecraft, on mission day 5 – which was actually the first to be performed, the initial correction burn having been cancelled due to Integrity being so precisely on course whilst under its own flight control software.

Day five also saw the crew test their dual-purpose Orion Crew Survival System (OCSS) suits – the orange-coloured space suits the crew wore during the Artemis 2. Designed for quick donning, the suits function as a contingency safety system during the crew’s time aboard and Orion spacecraft, providing up to 144 hours of life support in the event of a cabin depressurisation.

In their second role, the suits are intended to act as water survival suits in the event of an emergency evacuation of an Orion vehicle post-splashdown. In this role, the suits are intentionally coloured “international orange” so as to be more clearly visible in the water – just like survival suits used on ocean-going cargo vessels, oil rigs, deep sea fishing vessels, etc They additionally have inbuilt flotation devices. Each OCSS is custom made to fit an individual astronaut.

Day five also saw a series of discussions with Mission Control on the upcoming loop around the Moon to review lunar surface targets for observation and photography during the flyby and finalise observation techniques.

On flight day 6, Integrity officially entered the influence of the Moon, with lunar gravity now the dominant force in shaping the vehicle’s trajectory. Until now, Integrity had effectively (if slowly) been decelerating, due to the “pull” of Earth’s gravity behind it, effectively cruising at a few thousand kilometres an hour at it approached the Moon. Now, under the Moon’s influence the craft would start to very slowly accelerate, allowing the Moon’s gravity to swing it around the Moon and lob it back towards Earth without any significant engine burns.

Around the Moon

At 23:00 UCT on April 6th, Artemis 2 made its closest approach to the Moon, passing some 6,545 kilometres above the Moon’s far side. Shortly thereafter Integrity reached a distance of 406,771 kilometres from Earth, breaking the record for the furthest any humans had been from Earth and set by the crew of Apollo 13 in 1970. At this point, Integrity officially started its flight back towards Earth.

During the loop around the Moon, Artemis 2 was in communications black-out with Earth due to the bulk of the Moon being between the spacecraft and Earth, effectively blocking all signals. This blackout lasted 40 minutes, and ended with a successful recovery of comms and telemetry at the expected time.

Following the comms blackout, the crew of Artemis 2 witnessed a solar eclipse from deep space as the bulk of the Moon came between them and the Sun. This allowed the crew to observe both the eclipse from a unique perspective, and witness a number of “impact flashes” of meteoroids striking the semi-dark lunar surface facing them. The Moon was not fully dark as the Earth was off to one side relative to Integrity, and so was reflecting sunlight back onto one hemisphere of the Moon, bathing it in “Earthlight”.

Also during the flight around the Moon, the crew christened two previously unnamed craters on the Moon. They named one for their spacecraft, Integrity, whilst the second was – in a poignant moment – named Carroll, in honour of Reid Wiseman’s late wife, who passed away from cancer in 2020.

Between flight day 7 and flight day 9, Orion departed the Moon’s sphere of influence on its free return trajectory towards Earth, once again slowly accelerating. For most of Day 7 the crew were engaged in debriefing calls with Earth, recording their observations, feelings and emotions during their trip around the Moon whilst memories and reactions were still fresh. They also put in a call to astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS).

A further planned use of manual control by Wiseman and Pilot Victor Glover on Day 8 was cancelled in order to allow mission managers conduct a data-gathering exercise related to a non-critical helium leak within the Orion’s European Service Module (ESM), so that they might better analyse the issue post-mission. Two final trajectory adjustment burns were carried out on Days 9 and 10, lasting 8 and 9 seconds respectively. Most of Day 9 saw the crew packing and stowing experiments and equipment in readiness for re-entry and splashdown.

Following the course correction burn on Day 10, the ESM was jettisoned, its work done. The reaction control thrusters system (RCS) on Integrity then operated in sequence over 19-seond period, both manoeuvring the capsule away from the ESM and orienting it in readiness foe atmospheric re-entry.

EDS: Entry, Descent and Splashdown

Day 10 saw the most critical elements of the mission unfold: atmospheric entry, descent and splashdown. During Artemis 1, and as I’ve covered in numerous Space Sunday pieces, post-recovery, the heat shield showed some disturbing issues. As well as the expected ablation damage to the heat shield, it also showed signed of deep scoring and charring, with relatively large holes apparently seared through the heat shield material.

After extensive analysis, it was determined that an error in the fabrication process for the initial heat shields for Artemis 1 through 3 had resulted in pockets of gas being trapped in the layers of ablative material. Due to the original re-entry profile for Orion, as used on Artemis 1, which saw the vehicle “skip” in and out of the upper atmosphere to reduce its velocity prior to actual re-entry, these gases ended up being super-heated several times, weakening the heat shield’s structure and eventually blowing holes up and out of it as they outgassed.

While the fabrication process for the heat shields was revised to mitigate any issues of gases becoming trapped – Artemis 2, due to time constraints, would have to fly with its original heat shield. To compensate for this, NASA altered the mission’s re-entry profile to be more Apollo-like: a single direct re-entry. Whilst this might increase stresses on the vehicle and crew, it would reduce the time over which any trapped gases in the heat shield might have expand and contract and weaken its overall integrity, thus increasing the risk of failure.

As it turned out, the heat shield (subject to post-flight inspection) did its job in this new re-entry profile and protected Integrity and its crew, all of which descended by parachute post re-entry to splashdown off the coast of California, where a recovery operation overseen by the USS John P. Murtha out of San Diego saw the recovery of both crew and the space vehicle. Following initial medical checks on the Murtha, the four crew were then flown to the mainland for further check-ups, prior to proceeding on to the Johnson Space Centre in Texas to be reunited with families and loved ones.

Research related to Artemis 2 will continue post flight, and some of it will continue to focus directly on the four crew, comprising functional check-out tests, simulated space walks, exercises, etc., to further gain insight into the human body’s ability to adapt to low gravity operations and work, and its ability to recover from them. As well as this, all four will be a part of a media circus for some time to come. To them, and all those involved in Artemis and Artemis 2 – congratulations.

What Comes Next?

Originally, Artemis 2 was to be followed by the first attempt at landing an Artemis crew on the Moon. However, this idea both spoke to an unwarranted gung-ho attitude on the part of Artemis management at NASA (no crewed pre-testing of the lunar landing system (called the Human Landing System, or HLS) in Earth orbit), and assumed the mission would actually have a lunar landing vehicle (from SpaceX) available to meet its 2027 launch date.

In taking over at NASA, Jared Issacman saw the gung-ho approach of Artemis 3 as a step too far, and so  – with Congressional and White House approval – determined Artemis 3 should be an Earth-orbiting testy of the HLS vehicle by a crew. Also, in keeping with his predecessor, Sean Duffy, he indicated that SpaceX was no longer the sole provider of the Artemis 3 HLS; but would directly face off against Blue Origin, who had been awarded a HLS contract by order of Congress after NASA changed the scope and rules of the original HLS contract to favour SpaceX.

Given that the SpaceX HLS continues to exist as little more than a few disparate elements (such as the crew elevator – largely developed by NASA) and pretty computer renderings, this move to include Blue Origin – who are actively testing elements of their HLS, Called Blue Moon Mark 2 with NASA astronauts – is a wise one, given the SpaceX CEO appears to believe time frames and delivery dates are purely functions of his ego.

As it is, this year should see Blue Origin fly a Blue Moon “pathfinder” mission to the Moon. This will see a scaled-down version of the Blue Moon cargo lander fly a payload from NASA to the Moon, allowing it to test the flight control, navigation, and data communications systems and avionics which will all be part of both the Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo vehicle and Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS. If successful, the mission could put Blue Origin in a strong position to provide the HLS vehicle for both Artemis 4 and Artemis 5.

However, even if one (or both) HLS vehicles get successfully tested in Earth orbit in 2027, it does not mean NASA will be ready to send astronauts to the lunar surface – there is another hurdle to overcome, one entirely of NASA’s own making: cryogenic orbital refuelling.

To explain: while techniques for transferring hypergolic propellants between space  craft has long been available (the ISS, for example, routinely takes on propellants for its manoeuvring thrusters), cryogenic propellant transfer in space is entirely new. It’s not been used before simply because cryogenic propellants are not exactly stable. For one thing, they don’t like heat (and in space, in direct sunlight it s very hot). Heat makes them revert to a gaseous state, expanding their volume. This puts greater and greater pressure on the tanks holding them, such that if the gas isn’t vented to some degree, everything is going to quickly vanish in a brilliant (if silent – in space, no-one can here you go pop!) explosion.

Cryogenic propellants are also heavy in their liquid state, making them somethings of a deadweight if you’re attempting to lift them to orbit rather than burning them as a means to get to orbit. This latter point means that in order just to get to Earth orbit or to the Moon, the SpaceX HLS and Blue Moon Mark 2 (respectively) must launch without the fuel needed to get to the Moon, land a crew and get them back to lunar orbit. Thus, the fuel must be ferried to them post launch.

For Blue Origin, this means launching a Blue Moon HLS to lunar orbit, but without the propellants it needs to operate between lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface. Instead, these must be delivered by a “tanker” craft called the Cislunar Transporter, being developed by Lockheed Martin. But here’s the catch: the Cislunar Transporter has to be launched without the propellants it needs to get to the Moon or those it must transfer to the waiting HLS. So, once in orbit it also has to be “refuelled” by at least two Blue Origin New Glenn rockets.

And if that sounds complicated – SpaceX much do much the same with their HLS, which will launch with only sufficient propellants needed to get to Earth orbit. After this it must either make up to sixteen individual dockings with Starship “tankers” to take on the propellants it needs to reach the Moon and perform its duties there, or it must rendezvous with a (also yet to be built) “orbital fuel depot” previously filled with the propellants it needs by multiple Starship “tanker” flights.

And this is where boil-off comes into play: all of these approaches will result in large volumes of cryogenic propellants spending a lot of time in direct sunlight, turning back to a gaseous state, expanding and requiring venting to prevent their storage tanks rupturing. So techniques and entirely new technologies need to be developed and tested in order to reduce the overall boil-off issues lest more time is spent on “tank top-up” missions than in actually sending humans to the Moon. Further, no-one knows if large volumes of cryogenic propellants can easily be pumped from one vehicle to another in microgravity.

Thus, even though Artemis 2 has been a huge success and NASA is turning its attention to Artemis 3, the programme as a whole still has some hefty hurdles to clear before it is close to being ready to send humans back to the surface of the Moon, and at the current rate of progress, I cannot see all those hurdles being cleared by “early 2028 – less than 2 years from now – when Artemis4 is supposed to launch on its crewed mission to the lunar surface.

On Wednesday April 1st, 2026, NASA’s Artemis 2 mission launched on a 10-day cruise to the Moon and back (with time initially spent in Earth orbit), carrying a crew of four to test the capabilities and facilities of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) when used for human spaceflight.

The mission marks a number of firsts for NASA, all critical to future Artemis missions, including:

• The first launch of a Space Launch system (SLS) rocket with a crew aboard.
• The first launch of the Orion spacecraft – this one christened Integrity by its crew – with people aboard.
• The first time an Orion spacecraft has flown under manual control.
• The first time an Orion vehicle will attempt a re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere carrying a crew aboard.
• The first time humans have surpassed 400,000 kilometres from Earth.
• The first time a vehicle intended for use in the vicinity of the Moon has carried an actual toilet on board.
• The first time a non-US citizen has travelled to the Moon.

The four crew in question are Mission Commander Reid Wiseman, Mission Pilot Victor Glover, Mission specialist Christina Koch (pronounced “Cook”), all from NASA, and Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency. If you’re interested in potted histories of the crew’s backgrounds, then please refer to my previous Space Sunday article.

Launch

Lift-off came at 22:35 UTC, some 11 minutes later than the target launch time after a couple of minor issues on the SLS vehicle had to be investigated and resolved. One of these related to one of the two battery systems powering the Flight Termination System. The latter is used to destruct the rocket once the crew have been pulled clear by the Launch Abort System (LAS), should a serious issue result in the rocket veering substantially off-course. This particular problem was identified as a sensor failure rather than any fault with the battery itself.

The power of the SLS was immediately apparent following launch – at just thirty seconds into the flight, the launch system has completed its roll to pitch over to the correct ascent angle and was punching through 4.8 kilometres altitude as a speed in excess of 1,920 km/h.  From there:

• At T+1 minute the vehicle passed through ”Max Q”, the period when the rocket encounters the peak atmospheric dynamic stresses as it continues to accelerate through the denser portion of the atmosphere, the four RS-25 motors of the core stage throttling back to reduce the load on the rocket.
• At T+ 90 seconds, with Max Q passed and the RS-25 motors running at 100% thrust, the SLS went supersonic and passing through 22.4 km altitude.
• At T+2 minutes, with the RS-25 motors had again throttled to 85% thrust, and the two massive solid rocket boosters, their fuel expended, separated to continue on their own ballistic trajectory, eventually falling into the Atlantic Ocean.
• By 3 minutes into the ascent, Artemis 2 was at 78.4 km altitude, and closing on the 80 km Kármán line, the conventional definition of “the edge of space”. Travelling at some 8,000 km/h, the rocket jettisoned the two fairings that had protected Integrity’s European Service Module (ESM).
• This was followed almost immediately by the unlocking of the couplings between the LAS at the top of the rocket, and the Orion capsule. The motors on the LAS fired, pulling it clear of the SLS, exposing the Orion capsule to space.

• MECO – main engine cut-off – occurred at 8 minutes 2 seconds after lift-off, with Integrity and the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) continuing to ascend, the reaction control systems (RCS) on the ICPS sufficient to pull it and Integrity clear of the SLS core stage, which, like the SRBs, continued on its own ballistic trajectory, prior to starting a long fall back to Earth, breaking up in the process and falling into the Atlantic Ocean.

At this point, Integrity was travelling at 27,200 km/h – slightly above the speed required to achieve Earth orbit and on a trajectory intended to put it into an elliptical orbit around Earth with a perigee (closest point to Earth) of around 200 km. At this point, operations switched from launch to initial mission activities.

The latter comprised two major elements: inside the Orion capsule, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen left their seats to set-up critical equipment and services. These included unstowing the fire-fighting equipment and mounting it on its assigned racks and then doing the same with the drinking water dispenser, toilet (which had its first malfunction, requiring Koch and Hansen to carry out a fix (the Toilet would again have issues on Flight Day 4, with the crew reporting it was depositing unpleasant odours in the main capsule) and other crew-related equipment. At the same time, Wiseman and Glover remained in their seats and ran through the protocols and check sheets for deploying the ESM’s solar arrays – vital for supplying Integrity with electrical power.

The solar arrays were deployed some 25 minutes after launch, and powered-up to start producing electrical power. At 50 minutes after lift-off, Hansen and Koch were back in their seats, the solar arrays were producing power and the go was given for two orbit-changing manoeuvres.

The first was a short burst of the ICPS RL-10 engine, raising the perigee of Integrity’s orbit whilst maintaining its elliptical form. This was followed by a second 15-minute burn of the RL-10, extending Integrity’s perigee and apogee (the latter to some 70,000 km from Earth, placing the vehicle in a high Earth orbit.

This second RL-10 burn expended almost all remaining fuel in the ICPS, accelerating Integrity almost to the velocity required to complete a trans-lunar injection (TLI) manoeuvre. However, this is not what happened. Instead, with the ICPS separated and orbiting Earth independently of Integrity, Glover and Wiseman commenced what NASA normally refers to as an RPOD simulation, but which for Artemis 2 was simply called “proximity operations”.

RPOD Simulations / Proximity Operations

RPOD – Rendezvous, Proximity Operations and Docking – is a core part of modern day space operations with NASA, being fundamental to crews and supplies being able to launch to and reach the International Space Station (ISS) and then dock safety with it either under automated or manual control.

For the Artemis programme, being able to carry out a successful RPOD is vital to all the lunar surface missions, as they must be able to rendezvous and temporarily dock with the Moon- orbiting Human Landing System (HLS) vehicle which will actually deliver nominated crew members to the surface of the Moon, and then re-dock with the HLS vehicle to allow the surface mission crew return to their Orion craft for a return to Earth.

To this end, the ICPS had been equipped with a rendezvous and docking target, allowing Wiseman and Glover to test out the docking heads-up display whilst also using Integrity’s RCS thrusters to make simulated rendezvous approaches to the ICPS, aborting before the two vehicles actually made contact. In addition, Wiseman and Glover used manual control of the Orion to test proximity manoeuvring and close formation flying around the ICPS – both the POD and proximity operations marking the first time Orion had ever been manually flown. Both astronauts praised the vehicle’s handling qualities prior to returning the craft to its autopilot.

With Integrity well clear of the ICPS, the latter deployed two CubeSats then fired its RL-10 for a final time, placing it on a destructive re-entry into the upper atmosphere. At this point the crew moved to the next phases of initial operations.

Initial Mission Highlights

First, the Orion’s “gymnasium” – a flywheel device capable of allowing multiple exercises – was set-up and crew members took it in turns exercising, putting Integrity’s life support system through something of a stress test. After this, the crew set-up the food reheater and had dinner together from their rather impressive menu of meal choices. A 4-hour sleep period was then taken, allowing the crew some much needed rest.

The sleep period was short as a further orbital manoeuvre was required to again raise Integrity’s perigee away from Earth and place it on a trajectory suitable for a TLI burn. With this complete, the crew settled back for another 4-hour sleep period whilst NASA mission control reviewed the overall performance of Orion and its systems to determine if Integrity was good to go for a free-return flight for the Moon.

Authorisation was given for TLI on flight day 2 after the crew had risen and eaten. The manoeuvre comprised a burn of the ESM’s AJ10 main engine of just under 6 minutes, using some 450 kg of hypergolic propellants. It pushed Integrity out of Earth’s orbit and on its way to pass around the Moon. This free return trajectory meant the vehicle would not need to use its AJ10 engine as it passed around the Moon in order to head back to Earth – gravity would do the work for the mission. However, the ESM’s propulsion systems would be required for various mid-course correction manoeuvres.

The first of these course corrections was due on Flight Day 3. However, such was the accuracy of the SLS’s performance coupled with that of Integrity itself, this manoeuvre was discarded – the vehicle was precisely on the course it needed. On Flight Day 4 Hansen (a Canadian fighter pilot) and Koch (a jet-qualified civilian pilot) took the controls of Orion and put the vehicle through a further series of RCS tests, evaluating its ability to complete both 3- and 6-degrees of freedom of movement manoeuvres (that is, rolling, pitching and yawing around various axes without altering its general trajectory). Both Koch and Hansen reported the vehicle presented excellent and stable  handling.

Currently, the crew is due to pass around the Moon on Monday, April 6th. 2026 as they do so, they will reach a distance of approximately 406,773 kilometres from Earth, beating the previous record for the furthest humans have travelled from Earth to date – set by the abortive Apollo 13 mission in 1970 – by some 6,000 km. At this point, Integrity will be some 7,600 km beyond the surface of the Moon’s far side as it starts its journey home. The closest Artemis 2 will come to the surface of the Moon is approximately 6,513 km.

During the intervening period, the crew continue to test Integrity’s systems and capabilities and carry out a range of experiments, notably related to crew health and welfare. As a part of this work, Integrity carries two key experiments: AVATAR – A Virtual Astronaut Tissue Analogue Response, and an experiment system called ARCHeR (Artemis Research for Crew Health & Readiness (if there is one thing you definitely can say about NASA is that they work very hard at their acronyms!)

AVATAR can mimic individual astronaut organs, allowing medical experts evaluate tissue and other responses to various aspects of spaceflight and monitor essential biomarkers. AVATAR has been flown aboard the ISS several times, but this mission marks its first deep space mission – one that carries it and the Artemis 2 crew through the Van Allen radiation belts – thus offering the opportunity to gain further insight into the potential impact of these highly radioactive zones as Integrity zooms through them at several thousand km/h.

 ARCHeR (which I cannot help think was named by an NASA fan of Star Trek (see Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula), first commander of the Star Ship Enterprise, NX01) uses movement and sleep monitors worn by the crew to gather real-time health and behavioural information for crew members so scientists can study sleep patterns and overall health performance.

Further, Artemis 2 is testing and demonstrating the Orion Artemis II Optical Communications System (O2O). This is an optical communications system uses laser beams for two-way communications between Earth and the mission. Smaller and lighter than a conventional radio system, O2O also uses less power and increases transmission rates (up to 200 Mbits per second). If successful, O2O could become a feature of future Artemis missions from Artemis 4 onwards and used in potential human missions to Mars.

I’ll have more on Artemis 2 next week. In the meantime, you can follow the mission in real-time, via NASA’s 24/7 livestream.

If all goes according to plan, this coming week – possibly Wednesday, April 1st – we’ll see the Artemis 2 mission lift-off from Kennedy Space Centre, Florida, carrying four humans to the vicinity of the Moon, the first mission to do so in over half a century.

The journey to get to this point has been long and arduous; projects have been initiated, cancelled, re-organised and recommenced, funding has been provided, cut, renewed, reduced, extended… but the dream of returning to the Moon had remained steadfast in the eyes of enough people (doubtless aided by China’s emergence on the human spaceflight scene with their announced intent to go to the Moon), to keep political minds engaged in the journey.

Artemis 2 is very much a proving mission, aimed at ensuring the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and its European-built service module are both fit for purpose in supporting crews of four on extended missions to the Moon, as well as testing critical capabilities required for those missions which will actually deliver humans to the South Polar Region of the Moon starting with Artemis 4 – such as rendezvous and docking with the lander vehicle those headed for the Moon will use.

But who are the four people who will be aboard Artemis 2’s Orion capsule, with its “space toilet” that has so fixated much of the media? I thought I’d offer some brief biographical notes.

Commander Gregory Reid Wiseman, Mission Commander

Known simply as Reid, and a US Naval aviator and Captain, Wiseman has already accumulated 165 days, 8 hours and 1 minute in space (including 12 hours and 47 minutes split across 2 EVAs), having flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz TMA-13M and as a part of the Expedition 40/41 crew between May and November 2014.

Born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1975, Reid earned a degree in computer science from  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, new York. In 2006, whilst a member of the Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC), he gained a master’s degree in systems engineering from Johns Hopkins University.

In 1999, Wiseman was designated a Naval Aviator and underwent training to fly the famous F-14 Tomcat. Initially based at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, he was deployed prior to being deployed to the Middle East for two tours of combat duty.  During his second tour of duty, he was selected to attend the US Navy Test Pilot School, where on graduation he was assigned as a test pilot and Projects Officer at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. Following this, he was assigned to carrier duty and transitioned to flying the F/A-18 super Hornet, once again seeing overseas deployments. He transferred to NASA in 2009.

Following his time aboard the ISS as a part of Expedition 40/41, Wiseman was appointed Chief of the Astronaut Office, a post he held for 2 years (December 2020 through the end of November 2022), stepping down from the post to active flight status in the hope of securing a position on one of the Artemis missions.  In April 2023, he was selected to command Artemis 2.

Wiseman was married to Carroll Wiseman (nee Taylor), with whom he had two daughters, through to her death from cancer at age 46.

Victor Jerome Glover Jr, Mission Pilot

During the three years between 2007 and 2010, Glover earned three further degrees: a Master of Science in flight test engineering; a Master of Science in systems engineering and Master of Military Operational Art and Science, all of which were earned whilst he was a serving officer in the US Navy. He gained his aviator wings in 2001, and like Wiseman, trained on the F/A-18 Hornet. Also like Wiseman, he saw duty at NAS Oceana prior to being assigned to the USS John F. Kennedy and deployed to the Middle East as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Following this, Glover also entered the US Navy Test Pilot School, and served as a test pilot based at China Lake, California. Subsequent to this, he was sent to the US Naval Air Facility, Atsugi, Japan, and thence to the USS George Washington for a Pacific Ocean tour of duty.  Throughout his military career, Glover used the call sign “Ike”, a sobriquet jokingly given him by his first commanding officer, which was said to mean “I know everything”, on account of his long list of degrees.

As well as earning multiple technical degrees, Glover also obtained a Certificate of  Legislative Studies which led him being offered a role within Senator John McCain’s staff.

Glover joined NASA in 2013, and following the completion of his training, he was assigned to fly on the first operational flight (and second crewed flight overall) of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, also serving as a crew member for Expedition 64/65. The mission launched in November 2020, with Glover clocking 167 days 6 hours and 19 minutes in space, 26 hours and 4 minutes of which were spent performing four separate EVAs.

He was announced as the Artemis 2 Pilot alongside Wiseman and the other crew members in April 2023. He is married to Dionna Odom Glover and they have four daughters.

Mission Specialist Christina Koch

Christina Koch (pronounced “cook”, and nee Hammock) has accumulated the most time in space thus far of any of the Artemis 2 crew – a total of 328 days 13 hours and 58 minutes; 42 hours and 15 minutes of which were spread across 6 individual EVAs.

Born in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1979, Koch was raised in Jacksonville, North Carolina. From the earliest she can remember she had always wanted to be an astronaut. Following schooling, she enrolled in the North Carolina State University, earning Bachelor of Science degrees in engineering and physics before going on to gain a Masters in electrical engineering. In 2001, whilst still studying, she was accepted into the NASA Academy Programme at the Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC), Maryland.

At GSFC, Koch worked out of the High Energy Astrophysics facility, contributing to scientific instruments on several NASA missions that studied astrophysics and cosmology. In 2004, Koch took a 3-year secondment with the US Antarctic Research Programme as a Research Associate, spending her time in both the Antarctic and Arctic regions. Whilst in Antarctica, Koch experienced temperatures of -79.4º C. She also served as a member of the fire fighting teams at the various bases she worked at, and also joined the Ocean / Glacier Search and Rescue teams.

Returning to the US in 2007, Koch contributed to instruments studying radiation particles for NASA missions, including the Juno and Van Allen Probes whilst seconded to the Applied Physics Laboratory at John Hopkins University. She then spent time at NASA’s sister organisation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In 2013, Koch was selected for astronaut training alongside Victor Glover. She was subsequently selected for Soyuz MS-12 as a part of the Expedition 59/60/61 crew. Koch joined astronaut Jessica Meir in the first all-female EVA ever undertaken, carrying out a series of upgrades to the power systems on the ISS across a total of three joint EVAs.

Originally, Koch was to have returned to Earth at the end of the Expedition 60 rotation. However, due to reassignment schedules, she was asked to remain aboard the ISS a further 6 months, allowing her to clock up her 328 days record in space – the longest continuous stay in space by a woman.

Jeremy Hansen (CSA), Mission Specialist

Jeremy Roger Hansen is the rookie among the crew and the only non-American. Born in London, Ontario, Hansen attended the Royal Military College, Ontario following his high school education. At RMC Ontario, he earned a Bachelor of Science degree with First Class Honours in space science in 1999, before going on to earn a Master of Science degree in physics  with a research focus on wide field of view satellite tracking.

In 2009, Hansen was accepted into the ranks of the Canadian Space Agency, training as an astronaut. In 2013 he was selected to join the European CAVES programme, becoming a “cavenaut”. The following year NASA selected Hansen to serve as an “aquanaut” aboard the Aquarius underwater laboratory during the 7-day NEEMO 19 undersea exploration mission.

Hansen is married to Doctor Catherine Hansen, a distinguished expert in women’s health. Together, they have three children.

The Artemis 2 Mission Patch

All NASA missions traditionally have a mission patch designed by the crew (with NASA management approval over the final design!).

These patches are generally symbolic in nature, often containing references to the mission or to current or past space events. In this, the Artemis 2 mission patch is no exception.

Firstly, its shape is symbolic of the Orion capsule’s general shape, indicating the vehicle as a home for the 4 crew. A stylised “AII” occupies the right side of the patch, signifying the mission umber and the fact that Artemis 2 is for “all humanity – a play on “for all mankind” of the Apollo era. This sits directly over the lunar far side – thus denoting the mission’s trip around the Moon, a red ribbon running from Earth and around the Moon mirrors a similar ribbon in the Project Artemis patch, the red of the ribbon indirectly referencing NASA’s role in aeronautics – as per the red chevron in the NASA insignia). The Moon is dominant in the patch, with the Earth rising behind it.

If this particular part of the patch rings bells, rest assured it is intentional: the Moon with the Earth rising behind it is designed to evoke memories of the famous Apollo 8 image Earthrise, thus linking Artemis II with the first Apollo space mission to fly around the Moon and back to Earth.

How to Watch the Launch

Artemis 2 is due to launch no earlier than 22:24 UTC on April 1st, 2026. You can watch the countdown and launch via NASA’s livestream (commencing 17:50 UTC on April 1st).

Lunar Gateway ”Paused”

Jared Isaacman, NASA’s current Administrator, continues to shake things up around Project Artemis – and quite possibly for the better in terms of focus and goals.

As I’ve previously covered, Isaacman has already made significant changes to Project Artemis which impact both missions and hardware (e.g. Artemis 3 will now be an Earth-orbiting mission, not a lunar landing mission).

On March 24th, 2026, Isaacman informed NASA personnel and the press that the space agency will be “pausing” work on its proposed Gateway Station, the much heralded space station occupying an extended halo orbit around the Moon. For those (myself included) who could not see any practical benefits in spending time and money developing yet another (if much smaller than the ISS) space station in lunar orbit, this is welcome news.

Gateway station has always come across as an unnecessary complication in getting people to / from the Moon. It’s halo orbit means it will only be within reach of crews on the lunar surface once every seven days – which is great when you have an emergency and need to evac someone pronto and then have to rendezvous with the station in order to get them back to Earth. It will also require a lot of additional faffing around with rendezvous and docking manoeuvres and generally act as something of a boondoggle, drawing on funding that could be better spent elsewhere – such as the infrastructure actually required to establish a permanent base on the Moon.

This is what Isaacman is proposing: spending some US $20 billion over a period of seven years – a good portion of that money coming from allocations that would otherwise have gone to gateway – to develop and construct a permanent base on the Moon. Isaacman also expects member states involved in the Artemis Accords to help cover a portion of the of the costs – although as I’ll come to, this might not be so easy.

No hard details on the base were given – such as location, what infrastructure will be required (such as power systems – presumably nuclear – and so on), or how delivering the infrastructure and materials required to build the base will be achieved – although presumably Isaacman will be looking to the likes of Blue Origin and SpaceX with cargo variants of the lunar landing systems.

Not everyone is happy with the move, however. Japan and the European Space Agency were already partners in Gateway and due to provide core components and elements for the station and have been gradually ramping-up for production of said elements. Neither appear to be entirely sanguine over Isaacman’s decision, with ESA issuing a terse statement that could be read as meaning they’d been giving little or no warning of Isaacman’s decision, re Gateway.

The European Space Agency is currently holding close consultations with its member states, international partners and European industry to assess the implications of this announcement.

– ESA quote via AFP in response to Isaacman’s announcement on “pausing” Gateway Station

If this is the case – that there was no in-depth consultation on Gateway’s future with the likes of ESA and JAXA, then  while the “pausing” of Gateway is welcome, the handling of the announcement could be seen as somewhat less than diplomatic.

The Space Launch System (SLS) which will launch a crew of four on a trip around the Moon aboard their Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) during the Artemis 2 mission, has returned to the launch pad at Kennedy Space Centre’s Launch complex 39B (LC-39B).

The rocket had to be returned to the Vehicle Assembly Building on February 25th, 2026 after a helium pressurisation issue was found in the rocket’s upper Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), resulting in a helium leak.  While the leak could be resolved with the vehicle on the pad, the need to ensure the ICPS has a stable helium pressure flow when in operation called for a rollback to the VAB to allow engineers unfettered access to the upper stage in order to resolve the problem.

The second roll-out to the pad mirrored the preparations for the Artemis 1 uncrewed mission in late 2022, which also saw the SLS rocket used on that flight rolled out to the pad, encounter issues (with the main propellant feed mechanism intended to fill the rocket’s tanks with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) then rolled back to the VAB, before a second roll-out to the launch vehicle back to the pad. Given the overall success of Artemis 1 (despite leading to concerns over the Orion capsule’s heat shield), the roll-out, rollback, roll-back of Artemis 2 might be seen as a good (if delaying) omen.

The second roll-out took place overnight on March 20th, 2026 UTC (March 19th – 20th, US EDT) with the rocket and its Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) inching away from the confines of the VAB atop one of NASA’s mighty Crawler-Transporters. The 6.4 kilometre journey to the pad took almost 12 hours to complete, with the SLS and MLP positioned on the pad at around 15:20 UTC on March 20th.

The next launch window for the mission opens on April 1st, 2026 and runs through the first few days of April. NASA is currently targeting the very opening of the launch window on April 1st for a launch attempt, giving them maximum leeway should any minor issues occur or the weather decides to play a hand in matters.

Once launched, Artemis 2 will initially enter a 24-hour orbit around Earth. During this time several critical systems not carried aboard Artemis 1 will be tested and checked. Additionally the ICPS will be used to lift Orion into an elliptical orbit with a high apogee whilst imparting the craft with much of the velocity it will need to head for the Moon.

The ICPS will then separate from Orion and its European Service Module (ESM) and become a passive dummy target for the crew on Orion to carryout mock rendezvous and docking manoeuvres of the kind Orion will have to perform when operating around the Moon in future missions in order to dock with the lunar landing vehicles and (later) Gateway station.

Once these tests have been completed, Orion will use the ESM’s min motor to push it into a free return trajectory around the Moon on a trip lasting 9-10 days, affording the crew time to thoroughly check-out Orion’s systems and amenities.

EUS Replacement  – I Called It

On February 27th, 2026, NASA provided an update on the entire Project Artemis, noting some significant changes to mission and vehicles (see Space Sunday: major Artemis updates and a rollback).

One of these changes was the cancellation of the planned Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) the more powerful upper stage for the SLS that has been under development at Boeing for several years, and would replace the ICPS on mission from around Artemis 5 (now Artemis 6).

At the time of the announcement no indication was given as to what would be used to replace the EUS and ICPS, or whether NASA was looking at something to match the ICPS or EUS in capabilities. However, in my article linked to above, I noted that as far as I could see, there were only two possible contenders: Blue Origin, with their New Glenn upper stage, or United Launch Alliance (ULA) with their Vulcan-Centaur V upper stage, part of a family of Centaur upper stages that has gained a long and venerable operational history.

On March 10th, 2026 NASA confirmed my thinking by making a procurement filing to replace the ICPS and EUS with ULA’s Vulcan-Centaur V. Whilst some modifications to the stage will be required, the V-C 5 was selected by NASA in part because of its pedigree stretching back over 60 years (which was seen as overcoming the fact the Centaur V has itself only flown twice), and in part because it is almost a simple drop-in replacement for EUS and (particularly) ICPS.

Once upgraded, the V-C 5 will offer more-or-less the same capabilities as ICPS, but not as great as the EUS. However, the lineage of Centaur means NASA has an assured route to have the system upgraded to meet future needs, if required.

The NASA announcement also indicated that, per my theorising, they had also considered the Blue Origin New Glenn upper stage. This was only ruled out on the basis it has only flown twice thus far – albeit completely successfully on both occasions – and NASA wanted an upper stage replacement will a decent launch / success / failure history and a track record of development they could properly evaluate.

ULA’s established infrastructure, resources, flight history, existing cross-program integration, and human-rating familiarity with the Centaur upper stage represents the only currently viable opportunity for the Government to accomplish Artemis mission objectives and requirements while also maintaining the agency’s programmatic goals.

– From the NASA procurement filing

So, yay me for calling it.

Artemis Accord Signatories Mull How to Deal with Emergencies and More

When a single nation goes to the Moon, there’s a pretty narrow field of operational requirements that need to be dealt with to keep people safe, avoid misunderstandings, demote working areas, and in handling thing like emergency situations.

When multiple nations decide to not only head for the Moon, but head for the same part of the Moon – in this case the South Polar Region – such requirements get a lot more complicated.

Currently, there are two confirmed groups of nations participating in projects aimed towards a long-term human presence within the Moon’s SPR – those of the US-led Artemis Accords (numbering, at the time of writing, 61 nations – not all of whom will be seeking to send their own astronauts to the Moon) and the China and (nominally) Russian-led International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), comprising (at the time of writing) 13 nations.

As such, serious considerations need to be given to managing diverse (or even competitive) lunar operations, denoting separate research and work environments, establishing buffer zone between different interests and working areas, and – critically – how to handle emergencies and provide emergency support.

The latter is something very much up in the air – although one would hope any emergency call for assistance would be responded to without regard to the nationality or allegiance of those making the call. For the former – the establishment of buffer zones is seen by members of the Artemis Accords as the way to go, although they prefer the term “safety zones”.

These would, in theory, allow signatory states pursue their own specific research interests on the Moon without the risk unintentional (or even intentional) interference from other member states. The problem is, how should a “safety zone” be defined? Should limits be placed on the size of such zones? How should they be recognised? How lawful would they be? How can they be enforced when it comes to non-Artemis nations?

A major concern here is that of territorialism: member states (or even the Artemis project as a whole) laying claim to a large area of the Moon, or even an entire region. Such claims are explicitly outlawed under the 1967 Space Treaty, but if sufficient resources of a valuable nature are found in a particular area of the Moon, is that treaty enough to stop a nation establishing a presence there and declaring an exclusionary “safe zone” around it before hoisting their flag and treating it as a national enclave? And what sort of response should that garner if it did happen?

We’re a long way away from where these issues might start to become problems, but they do need to be addressed in some form – and not just by members of the Artemis Accords – but by all nations, whether or not they are signatories to the Accords or the ILRS.

Lunar Ice Might be Rarer than Thought

One of the reasons for the interest in sending humans to the lunar South Polar Region has been the fact that the region is heavily cratered, and due to their position, many of the bottoms of these craters never see daylight or feel the Sun’s heat. Referred to as permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) it has been theorised that these craters could be home to large, accessible (or at least semi-accessible) deposits of the Moon’s water ice – which would be enormously beneficial to human operations on the Moon if they could be exploited.

This idea is backed-up by PSRs elsewhere in the solar system being home o water ice, including the planet mercury and the asteroid Ceres, to name two examples. However, despite all our orbital observations of the Moon, confirming the presence of water ice in lunar PSRs has been difficult; not least because of the orbital complexities involved in get a satellite to overfly them and the fact they are very deeply shadowed when seen form orbit.

To try to understand just how much ice might be present in the bottoms of permanently shadowed craters on the Moon, a team of US researchers operating out of the University of Hawaii at Manoa developed ShadowCam, an imaging system 200 times more light-sensitive than most other cameras used to study and map the Moon from orbit.

ShadowCam forms a part of the payload flown aboard the Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter Danuri, South Korea’s first lunar mission, which entered orbit around the Moon in December 2022. Classified as a NASA experiment, ShadowCam first flexed its muscles in mid-2023, demonstrating it raw ability to see in to PSRs and reveal never-before-seen details.

More recently, ShadowCam has been engaged in a campaign to image multiple PSRs in the Moon’s Polar Regions (north and south) to reveal more of their secrets. And while the campaign has been very successful in providing new data and information on the observed craters, the one thing it hasn’t found is any sign of water ice deposits.

To be clear, any water ice contained within lunar craters is not going to be pure. It’s going to be mixed with and even covered by a layer of lunar regolith (the loose dust and rock fragments making up the surface material of the Moon). As such, these mixtures would produce different levels of reflectance and light scattering depending on the regolith-to-ice ratios encountered, although astronomers work on the basis that a mixture that is around 20-30% water ice would be enough to be detected by a sensitive-enough imaging system – and as noted, ShadowCam is very sensitive.

However, none of the dozens of PSRs on the Moon imaged by the instrument showed any signature that might indicate water ice was present in some degree. This doesn’t necessarily mean the water ice is not there; it could exist in percentages as low as 10%, or even in single digits – as these are levels too small for ShadowCam to currently detect, although the University of Hawaii team hope to be able to use software updates in their processing software that would reveal water ice in concentrations as low as 1%.

But that said, the real rub here is that even if such low percentages of water ice are revealed, and assuming ShadowCam’s results hold as more lunar PSRs are examined, then it is obvious that the hoped-for abundance of water ice to assist in lunar operations simply don’t exist or might be so small as to not be worth the expense and effort in trying to exploit them. As such, the water needed to help sustain human operations on the Moon and to enable various construction and technology options is going to become a further payload mass that will have to be routinely shipped from Earth.