Spaceflight – Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld

Space Sunday: listening to the Sun and Zvezda worries

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Inara Pey

*The Sun launched this coronal mass ejection at some 1,500 km/s on August 31st 2012. The Earth is included to give an impression of the scale of the CME. Credit: NASA*

Most of us are probably aware of the Sun’s magnetic cycle, rising and falling through a period of some 11 years. When this cycle is at its peak – or solar maximum – the surface of the Sun literally broils with sunspots which can sit on their own or as clusters. These sunspots range in size, with the largest thus far recorded measuring over 299,000 kilometres across – large enough to swallow two Jupiter-sized planets side-by-side! The sunspots are accompanied by an increase in solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) bursting away from the Sun and its corona.

At their most violent, flares and CMEs are fully capable of knocking out satellite systems, completely overwhelming critical GPS and direct communications systems and even bring down power grids if we happen to be in the path of one. Such periods of solar maximum can also see the Sun’s magnetic field flip entirely, before returning to “normal” after two further cycles (referred to as the Hale Cycle). By contrast, periods of solar minimum saw the Sun far quieter and less prone to fits of stormy anger.

Because of the Sun’s ability to be so disruptive, understanding how it behaves and learning to understand what we are seeing as a solar cycle progresses is becoming increasingly critical to maintaining our civilisation’s ability to function. Take GPS systems for instance. Whilst the help guide us when travelling, the signals they output play a critical role in things like the operation of power grids and oil rigs – and even financial systems and services. So a CME overwhelming a system like Galileo or GPS could do far more than just inconveniencing a trip to granny’s new house…

Thus, observations of the Sun from the surface of the Earth, of local orbit and from deep space – including fairly up close and personal to the Sun with missions such as the Parker Solar Probe – has become an essential element in maintaining much of the technology on which we depend. However, we’re not just observing the Sun visually: for the last 40 years we’ve been listening to it as well; in doing so scientists have found that something quite unexpected is going on inside the Sun.

*The Parker Solar Probe orbits the Sun at a distance of a few million kilometres. Rendering Credit: NASA*

Since 1987 a team of scientists based out of the University of Birmingham in the UK have been operating a series of specialist observatories located in the Americas (California and Chile), Europe (Spain), South Africa and Australia (Western Australia and New South Wales). Across 40 years, the network – called BiSON (Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network) – has been listening to the Sun’s “heartbeat”, oscillations within the Sun caused by sounds generated inside the Sun’s churning innards and which bounce around through the various layers. These oscillations can actually reveal much about what is going on within the Sun in a science called helioseismology. And what BiSON has discovered is twofold.

The first has been that, contrary to expectations, the period of solar minimum in a cycle is significantly different to the last, and that far from being a calm interregnum between the more violent peaks of the Sun’s cycles, each period of solar minimum carries within it indicators of just how violent the next period of solar maximum is likely to be – at least, to a point.

The second finding is more confusing. The majority of the Sun’s magnetic activity occurs within a layer below its surface – and throughout the period of listening by BiSON, this layer has been growing increasingly shallow, effectively squeezing the Sun’s magnetic activity into a smaller and smaller area. In theory, this squeezing should result in the Sun’s magnetic activity becoming more energetic and the periods of solar maximum more violent; but that’s not the case. Instead, two things are happening.

*The BiSON observatory at Las Campanas, Chile. Credit: University of Birmingham, UK*

The first is that the most recent periods of solar maximum have been exactly as the preceding periods of solar minimum indicated: cycle 24 was a lot calmer than either cycle 23 and cycle 22. Likewise the period of solar minimum between cycle 24 and cycle 25 indicated the latter would be mild as well – and by-and-large it has been. However, in contrast to this, the BiSON data reveals the subsurface magnetic activity and its associated oscillations within the Sun’s layers during the solar maximums for cycles 24 and 25 have been every bit as powerful as recorded for cycles 22 and 23. Thus, it is like the Sun is seething with rage inside itself – but is showing no outward sign of that rage other than a handful of extremely power outbursts (which, as note, are to be expected during periods of solar maximum).

No-one is sure why either the squeezing of the magnetic activity layer within the Sun is occurring or why the measurements of the Sun’s oscillations appear to be so at odds with the levels of behaviour seen during the recent periods of solar maximum. Potentially, it might simply be we’re catching sight of a much longer cycle in the Sun’s behaviour in which the area of magnetic activity is periodically squeezed before gradually being allowed to “expand” again. However, it might also signify a much deeper change in the Sun’s behaviour which could result in a much greater shift in its fundamental character which could come to have a significant impact on our reliance on space-based technologies simply because such a shift could undo much of what we’ve learned about the Sun and make it harder to predict its future behaviour.

At the same time as the BiSON released its findings, another study published its review on a solar event which might possibly indicate other changes might be taking place in and around the Sun – although in this particular instance it is far to early to draw any definitive conclusion.

As well as giving rise to solar flares and CMEs, periods of solar maximum tend to see an increase in large-scale radio bursts from the Sun. These come in a variety of types, one of the more powerful of which is the Type IV. These radio bursts have a broader spectrum band compared to other types, crossing multiple MHz and GHz frequencies. They can also last for longer – from several hours to a few days and can be a precursor warning for a CME. In August 2025, as cycle 25 was well on its way to the peak of its solar maximum period, the Sun let go of a type IV radio burst that lasted not for hours or a few days – but for almost three weeks. That’s four times longer than any other Type IV burst from the Sun ever recorded.

Such was its duration, the burst was recorded repeatedly by four separate space observatories watching the Sun from different locations. These comprised NASA’s STEREO-A, occupying a heliocentric orbit just inside that of Earth’s own orbit around the Sun; the Parker Solar Probe, also in orbit around the Sun, but practically right up in the Sun’s face; the Global Geospace Science Wind mission sitting in the Sun-Earth L₁ Lagrange point; and Europe’s Solar Orbiter mission, which is also gets up close and with the Sun, but in a higher inclination orbit.

Analysis of the data supplied by these observatories reveal that the burst came from a large magnetic structure in the Sun’s outer atmosphere called a helmet (or coronal) streamer. These are distinctive V-shaped loops of matter rising away from regions on the Sun’s surface which have the opposite magnetic polarity to the surrounding areas and the corona. They can rise up to 1.5 solar radii before lopping back to the surface, with the solar wind often pushing the uppermost material even further from the Sun in the form of tapering spears or stalks. These spears can occur at any time in the Sun’s 11-year cycle, but during periods of solar minimum then tend to form around the heliographic equator and are far less prominent.

However, during periods of solar maximum, they tend to be more symmetrically distributed around the Sun, and like the Type IV radio bursts, can be portents of a CME, as the latter can often start at the base of such a streamer, with the “cavity” in the streamer’s loop becoming the conduit through which the core of the CME then rises and is ejected from the Sun.

A coronagraph image of the Sun taken by High Altitude Observatory, of Boulder, Colorado during solar maximum in 1980. The disk of the Sun is covered, revealing numbers helmet streamers radiating away from the Sun, indicative of magnetic activity. Credit: National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

In the case of the August 2025 radio burst, the data gathered by the four probes revealed that no fewer than three CMEs had originated in rapid succession from the base of the one streamer – which in itself is unusual. Lead to also three CMEs becoming one massively supercharged event which fortunately did not intercept Earth in its orbit, but which did feed a huge amount of energy into the radio burst, leading to its longevity.

What is not understood is why these three CMEs occurred in pretty much overlapping proximity. Where they a freak occurrence, or a further sign the Sun is experiencing changes in its behaviour? If the latter, then is it something that is related to the squeezing of the layer in which the majority of the Sun’s magnetic activity occurs, or something else entirely? Will it become more expected during periods of solar maximum, and if so, what does it mean for our space-based systems?

Right now, the answers are far from clear – but the findings of both BiSON and the recording of this massive radio burst and recognition of its underlying cause reveal that the more we learn about our Sun, he more we have yet to understand about its complex nature.

Zevzda Leak: NASA and Roscosmos Again at Odds

*An animation of the ISS core assembly process (1998-2011). Zvezda was the third module to be launched (2000). Credit: NASA*

I’ve written about the long-standing atmosphere leak aboard the International Space Station (ISS) on several occasions – the last being in 2024. An issue for some seven years now, the leak lies within the aft airlock of the Russian Zvezda (aka PrK) module. Several attempts have been made to fix the issue down the years and none have succeeded.

At the time I last wrote about the situation, NASA and Roscosmos had once again figuratively butted heads on the issue and its possible cause. In 2024, the Russian space agency was adamant the slow leaks were the result of thermal contraction and expansion as the ISS orbited the Earth, passing in and out of sunlight and thus experiencing large swings in temperature across its structure.

NASA, however, was of the opinion that the leaks are indicative that the airlock itself was at risk of failure, the result of the massive stresses periodically placed on it.

To explain: the airlock at the aft end of the Zvezda module is aligned to the station’s centreline, making it one of the main ports used to carry out periodic and necessary “reboosts” to raise the station’s orbit as the tenuous drag of Earth’s upper atmosphere causes it to slowly descend. Whilst there are other ports on the station which can perform such reboosts, it is the Zvezda port which has commonly been used for boosting operations as Russian Progress resupply vehicles are well suited to the task. NASA has therefore been – and remains – of the opinion that these operations over the years have placed enormous stress on the airlock structure, resulting in the micro-cracks and the atmosphere leaks.

Because of this, NASA and the European Space Agency have long called for use of the Zvezda module to be discontinued, and the hatch linking it to the rest of the ISS permanently closed. Russia has disagreed, mainly because the docking element in question houses the connectors required to bring propellants for the station’s stations manoeuvring thrusters located in the Russian section of the station and the delivery of water supplies for the crew. Thus, losing the use of the docking port limits the station’s ability to carry out the kind of minor orbital adjustments it needs to avoid space debris, etc., and also potentially limits crew activities within the Russian section of the station.

As a compromise, it was agreed that as there was not an imminent risk of explosive decompression (or anything remotely violent), the hatch linking Zvezda should remain closed unless the module was in use – and that use would be largely limited to off-loading Progress craft. And there the matter has largely rested – until the late April 2026.

The Russian Zvezda Module (also called the PrK module), seen from its aft end, with the Progress dock post visible. The airlock tunnel where the leaks are occurring is the cream-white cylinder just inside the module’s main structure, surrounding the docking port. Credit: NASA

That was when Progress MS-34 docked with Zvezda with supplies for the station. Almost immediately after the vehicle’s arrival, the atmosphere loss within the module increased; not enough to endanger the station, but enough to be noticed. After monitoring the situation for a month, Roscosmos decided to take action – by ordering the cosmonauts on the station to drill into the module’s structure and then cut away part of a structural support.

This didn’t exactly go down well at NASA and ESA. Objections were lodged, exchanges became heated – and Roscosmos stop responding to the other agencies, declaring the operation would go ahead on June 5th. In response, NASA and ESA declared an emergency and ordered the three US and one French astronaut into the docked Crew Dragon under shelter in place / safe heaven rules, meaning they should be ready for immediate departure should anything happen.

This caused Roscosmos to reconsider their idea and ultimately call it off. Several further days of discussions were held and a compromise was eventually reached. This will see Zvezda sealed and depressurised so it is no longer directly used. However, Progress resupply missions carrying propellants and / or water will dock with the module for the purpose of transferring these items (which can be done automatically). Otherwise, Progress dockings (including those bringing propellants / water to the station alongside of other supplies) will occur at other docking ports in the Russian section of the station to facilitate the transfer of supplies.

Space Sunday: Artemis 3 – of Crew and Mission

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Inara Pey

*The Artemis 3 Crew (l to r): Bresnik (commander), Parmitano (Pilot); Rubio (MS-1); Douglas (MS-1). Credit: NASA*

On Tuesday, June 9, 2026 NASA held a major event to reveal the 4-man crew to fly the upcoming Artemis 3 Earth-orbit rendezvous mission and provide more information on the mission itself.

Originally planned to be the first Artemis mission to return humans to the Moon, Artemis 3 was wisely re-purposed early in 2026 to give astronauts a chance to get a hands-on feel for the vehicles intended to get them from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back again, by testing them in the relative safety of low-Earth orbit. Prior to this re-purposing, the first opportunity any crew would have had to test either vehicle – to be supplied by Blue Origin and SpaceX and referred to a the Human Landing System (HLS) by NASA – in space would have been immediately before the first attempt to land one of the vehicles on the Moon. Needless to say, this was hardly an ideal approach.

Instead, Artemis 3 will now be a 2-week mission (the longest yet for a crewed Orion vehicle) that will be a sort-of updated version of 1969’s Apollo 9 mission, which saw the Apollo Lunar Module tested in orbit around Earth during a 10-day flight. However, there will be a number of obvious and key differences which I’ll be getting to shortly.

The all-male crew for Artemis 3 comprise three US astronauts and one European Space Agency astronaut, with three of the crew highly experienced spaceflight veterans and the fourth making his first trip into space. They are:

Randolph “Randy” James Bresnik, 58 (NASA): Commander

Randolph “Randy” Bresnik, Artemis 3 Mission Commander

Born in Fort Knox Kentucky, Bresnik served in the US Marine Corps, logging an impressive 6,000 hours flying 81 different aircraft types, including time served as a test pilot before retiring with the rank of Colonel.
He joined the NASA astronaut corps in 2004, completing his training two years later.
First flew in space STS-129 in 2009 aboard space shuttle Atlantis. The 13-day mission was part of the International Space Station (ISS) construction, and he performed two EVAs alongside crewmates Michael Foreman and Robert Satcher respectively, to install external payload / experiment pallets on to the space station.
In 2011, he participated in the first ESA CAVES mission, a training course in which international astronauts train in a space-analogue cave environments such as might be used on Mars missions. Then in 2014 he commanded the NEEMO 19 mission, another analogue mission type, this one operated by NASA and using an underwater laboratory.
In 2017, he made his second trip to the ISS, this time launching aboard Soyuz MS-05 and spending 138 days on the space station as a part of the Expedition 52/53 crews, during which he performed three more EVAs, bringing his total “spacewalk” time to 32 hours.

Luca Salvo Parmitano, 49 (ESA): Pilot

Luca Parmitano (ESA): Artemis 3 Pilot

Sicilian-born Parmitano was the first Italian (and third European overall) to command a crew rotation aboard the ISS.
He was educated in both Italy and the USA, gaining holding a masters degree in political science from University of Naples.
He served in the Italian Air Force after training with the US Air Force, rising to the rank of Colonel and logging over 2,000 hours on over 40 types of aircraft (both fixed-wing and rotary), including time as a test pilot.
Joined the European Astronaut Corps in 2009, and made his first flight to the ISS in 2011 aboard Soyuz TMA-09M.
During this mission he carried out two EVAs, the second called short after he almost drowned when a fault in his spacesuit filled his helmet with coolant water up to his nose, shorting out his communications headset in the process.
On returning to Earth, he indirectly followed in Bresnik’s footsteps, being selected for the 2014 ESA CAVES mission and then the NASA NEEMO 20 mission in 2015. He also participated in the ESA PANGAEA analogue mission in 2016.
He returned to the ISS as a part of the Expedition 60 in 2019, flying alongside Christina Koch, one of the Artemis 2 crew. Whilst there, he completed four more EVAs for a total EVA time to 33 hours 9 minutes; became the first DJ to perform a live set from space (as a part of an music festival taking place in Ibiza) and took command of the ISS for 3 months as a part of Expedition 61.
With a total time of just 59 minutes shy of 367 days in space, he is the second most experienced member of the Artemis 3 crew in terms of time in space.

Francisco “Frank” Carlos Rubio, 50 (NASA): Mission Specialist 1

Francisco “Frank” Rubio, Artemis 3 MS-1

A graduate of the United State Military Academy, holding a bachelor’s degree in international relations, he logged over 1,100 hours flying helicopters for the US Army, with 600 hours on combat missions in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
He then transferred to the Army’s medical service, qualifying as a flight surgeon and then a field surgeon with the US Army Special Forces, rising to the rank of Colonel in the process.
Joining NASA in 2017, he made his first flight into space aboard Soyuz MS-22.
Planned for 6 months, as I reported at the time, this mission lasted more than a year after the Soyuz vehicle suffered a serious coolant leak. As a result, he and cosmonauts Sergey Prokopyev and Dmitry Petelin eventually returned to Earth aboard Soyuz MS-23 after completing 2 back-to-back 6-month tours on the ISS.
As a result of this, he clocked up almost 371 days in orbit, taking the record for the longest continuous time in space for a US astronaut.

Andre Douglas, 40 (NASA): Mission Specialist 2

Andre Douglas, Artemis 3 MS-2

The mission rookie, making his first flight in space, he serves in the US Coast Guard (USCG) as a special advisor to the commander of the service. During his career, he served both at sea and on-shore, including time as Commandant of the USCG Academy.
He holds both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in mechanical engineering; and further three master’s in naval architecture, marine engineering and electrical & computer engineering.
In 2015 he transitioned from active service to the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of Johns Hopkins University. Here he carried out wide-ranging research, published several papers and collaborated with NASA to assess lunar surface needs for human and robotic missions, and helped to guide technology development in both.
He joined NASA in 2021, completing his astronaut training in May 2024.
His first active duty role was on the back-up crew for Artemis 2, training alongside the prime crew ready to replace any one of them in the event of injury or illness. He also served as a member of the launch pad close-out crew responsible for getting the crew safety into their Orion capsule on the day of the mission’s launch.

Following the announcement of the crew, NASA came in for criticism in that it is an all-male team, critics claims the selection was the result of the Trump administration’s determination to eliminate all aspects of DEI from the federal workforce. Responding to the criticism, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman pointed out that crew selection is based on specific criteria notably in this case, the need for well-qualified test pilots (Bresnik and Parmitano) and someone closely involved in the development of lunar flight systems (Douglas), whilst Rubio’s medical experience would enhance the science elements of the mission.

Artemis 3 Mission Profile

As currently defined, Artemis 3 will proceed in four parts.

In the first, Blue Origin will use their New Glenn rocket to launch their Blue Moon MK2 Pathfinder to low Earth orbit. Pathfinder is essentially a working crew module from their actual HLS vehicle, complete with RCS thrusters, solar arrays and a simulated set of cryogenic tanks actual Blue Moon HLS vehicles will require.

With the Pathfinder vehicle in orbit, NASA will launch the Artemis crew aboard an Orion vehicle atop a modified Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. This rocket will lack the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion (ICPS) upper stage replaced by a mass simulator, as the ICPS is not required for the mission. The Orion will then rendezvous with the Pathfinder vehicle to commence two days of vehicle testing. This work will include:

Docking against Pathfinder’s orbital docking adopter/airlock.
Testing the airlock system on the Pathfinder vehicle, with two members of the crew boarding the vehicle.
Testing the module’s life support system through practical use, and also testing the on-board control, data management, navigation and communications systems.
Carrying out a practical evaluation of the module’s living spaces in micro-gravity.
Testing the module’s spacesuit storage and dressing spaces, with one of the crew actually donning and doffing one of the new Artemis space suits being developed by Axiom (or a non-functioning prototype thereof, depending on which is available at the time of the mission).

*A still from a NASA / Blue Origin animation of the Artemis 3 Orion vehicle approaching the orbital docking port on the Blue Moon MK2 Pathfinder vehicle. Credit: NASA / Blue Origin*

This is a fairly comprehensive test of the Blue Moon MK2 HLS crew module; however, it slips behind Apollo 9 in that there will be no testing of the HLS main propulsion system, and Pathfinder will not detach from Orion for a free-flight test of its RCS systems; Orion will manage all control and manoeuvring of the combined vehicles.

Following the Blue Moon tests, Orion will then shift to a single day of testing the docking system that will form part of the SpaceX Starship derived HLS. This docking system will be sent aloft on a “standard” Starship vehicle which – as of June 9th – is not expected to carry any other elements of the SpaceX HLS, severely limiting the idea of on-orbit system testing.

The fourth part of the mission will be peppered across the entire 2 weeks, comprising a range of science studies. These will include observations and measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere, together with medical and environment studies that build on the human science experiments carried out as a part of Artemis 2, and which are designed to further increase our understanding of dynamic space environments and radiation patterns.

*A still from a NASA / Blue Origin animation of the Artemis 3 Orion vehicle docked with the Blue Moon MK2 Pathfinder vehicle. Credit: NASA / Blue Origin*

One additional element of the mission has yet to be confirmed, and that is the potential for an EVA test. Details on this are currently sketchy, and it ultimately depends on whether or not Axiom can deliver a working version of the new Artemis space suits. These are intended to be a modular, dual-purpose design so they can either be used as part of surface operations on the Moon or as EVA suits for micro-gravity work aboard the ISS and other space stations, so a test on Artemis 3 would help further validate the suit design for both roles.

If the suit carried aboard the Blue Origin Pathfinder vehicle is fully functional, then there will likely be a full test of the vehicle’s main lunar surface airlock system, including depressurising and repressurising it, testing the hatch mechanisms, etc. However, the individual wearing the suit will not actually exit the vehicle.

That the SpaceX vehicle is unlikely to be equipped with anything other than the HLS / Orion docking adaptor potentially puts SpaceX at a further disadvantage in terms of which HLS craft will be selected for Artemis 4 (and possibly Artemis 5), simply because the tests with the Blue Moon MK2 Pathfinder are liable to give NASA a greater degree of confidence in that vehicle. This is further supported by the fact that Blue Origin have already supplied NASA with two test articles of their lander’s crew module, own of which is fully equipped for ground-based training and simulations. SpaceX are unlikely to achieve this before late 2026 at the earliest.

However, this does suppose that Blue Origin will actually be able to participate in Artemis 3 as currently scheduled. As I’ve previously reported, the only launch pad capable of handling New Glenn was destroyed on May 18th, 2026, during the testing of a New Glenn rocket in preparation for its next flight. Whilst Blue Origin is hoping to have all reconstruction work at LC-36 completed well in time for Artemis 3, there is a huge amount of work to be done in this regard.

Given this, Blue Origin’s Senior Vice President of Lunar Permanence, John Couluris used the June 9th event to indicate that as well as trying to push ahead with on-site investigations and clean-up operations at LC-36 so as to allow rebuilding to commence sooner rather than later, Blue Origin is also seeking to accelerate plans submitted for approval in April 2026 for the construction of a brand new launch facility to support New Glenn operations.

A Google Maps view of Canaveral Space Force Base, Florida, showing the former “ICBM Row” along the coast, the “Skid Strip” runway originally use to test wing missile landings (and which is not the former Space Shuttle Landing Facility), with the locations of the current Blue Origin LC-36 facilities and the proposed location (LC-11) for the new “SLC-36B/11” New Glenn launch facilities.

Dubbed SL-36B/11, this is to be built on the company’s current engine test stand located at LC-11, Canaveral Space Force Station and a short distance from LC-36. The hope is that if the approval process can be accelerated, Blue Origin will be able to commence construction even as work continues at LC-36. If so, there is a possibility the company might have two launch pads available for New Glenn flights by the time of Artemis 3.

Obviously, this is a very ambitious plan, and as such there is still the possibility that Artemis 3 might yet be pushed back into 2028 (although political pressure could weigh heavily against this) in order to ensure Blue Origin is in a position to participate. This could also benefit SpaceX, as it might provide them with the opportunity to provide more than just the HLS docking adaptor for Artemis 3 testing (although this would likely be a long shot as well).

In the meantime, one interesting facet that did emerge from the June 9th event was that SpaceX and NASA are in discussions about changing the Artemis mission profiles when using the SpaceX HLS vehicle.

Renderings of the 16m tall Blue Origin HLS (l) and the 52m tall SpaceX HLS (r) as they are supposed to look on the Moon. The Blue Origin rendering shows the surface airlock and egress/access steps to the right of the vehicle and the circular orbital airlock used for docking with Orion spacecraft to the left. The SpaceX orbital airlock is located at the nose of the vehicle, with the surface operations airlock + the elevator required to get crew from / to the surface of the Moon also shown. Credits: Blue Origin / SpaceX

Under current plans, both the Blue Origin and SpaceX HLS vehicles are launched into low-Earth orbit first and (after propellant loading / docking with a transport vehicle in the case of Blue Origin) then proceed to lunar orbit to await the arrival of a crew aboard an Orion spacecraft. However, the SpaceX / NASA discussions revolve around having the Orion vehicle rendezvous and dock with the SpaceX HLS whilst the latter is still in orbit and after it has received the propellant load-out it requires to carry out its lunar mission.

This approach actually makes a lot of sense. For one thing, it means that the crew could potentially make use of the the roomier facilities aboard the SpaceX HLS during the outbound trip to the Moon (and ensure it is all functioning smoothly) and it would potentially provide them was a “lifeboat” capability in the event of an Apollo 13-style accident. As such, it will be interesting to see had far these discussions progress.

Space Sunday: NASA’s nuclear electric plans, a goodbye to MAVEN and a New Glenn update

Posted on June 7, 2026 by Inara Pey

*A composite image of SR-1* Freedom *(rendering) approaching its orbit around Mars. Credit: NASA*

Just over a month ago NASA announced plans to test a nuclear propulsion system on mission to Mars. The news came as a surprise at the time, given it came a year after another nuclear propulsion project involving NASA had joined (along with the US Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) had been cancelled.

Called DRACO (Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations), that project was formally initiated in 2021, with the intention of finally evaluating the deep space use of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) – that is, the use of a nuclear reactor to heat a propellant mass (usually liquid hydrogen) to generate thrust through the engine nozzles. Targeting a launch date in late 2027, DRACO was always ambitious, and inevitably ran afoul of technical and regulatory challenges starting it on the road to oblivion prior to funding via both DARPA and NASA being halted.

*A rendering of the cancelled DRACO DRAPA / NASA nuclear thermal propulsion demonstrator mission. Credit: DARPA*

The technological and regulatory problems faced by DRACO primarily concerned two key points. The first being the need for a liquid propellant (requiring substantial propellant mass and the additional mass and complexity of trying to keep the propellant in a liquid state through passive and active means in the full heat of the Sun).

More particularly, DRACO’s nuclear system was to be open cycle, meaning the liquid hydrogen would pass through the reactor system to turn it into the gas needed to propel the vehicle – irradiating it in the process. While people would likely not be too happy about a nuclear reactor spewing radioactive material into the upper atmosphere if it was used whilst in orbit around Earth, the bigger regulatory issue for DRACO was simply how could a system generating radioactive exhaust materials be safely tested on the ground?

Because of this, NASA’s new mission concept – called Space Reactor 1 (SR-1, with the vehicle itself to be called Freedom) instead intends to use nuclear electric propulsion. This is important because it allows the use of a closed cycle nuclear reactor – in this case a closed Brayton cycle fission reactor generating some 50 kW of electrical power. The key point here is that closed cycle reactors can avoid exposing a propellant to radiation, so the exhaust gasses exiting the engine is relatively “clean”. Thus, SR-1 theoretically avoids some of the regulatory issues faced by DRACO.

The “engines” in question for SR-1 are three 12 kW (nominal) Hall-effect thrusters. This in turn is important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Hall-effect propulsion systems are well understood. Secondly, they utilise a far less volatile propellant than liquid hydrogen – generally Xenon – which a) doesn’t need to be a liquid form, and so b) avoids all the complexities of passive and active refrigeration. Both the use of the thrusters and the Xenon fuel therefore cuts out a lot of the technical complexities SR-1 could face when compared to DRACO. Further, SR-1 plans to use a propulsion module that has been in development for some time: the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) which was to have been used on NASA’s (now cancelled) Lunar Gateway station. This could again help reduce the technical complexities designing SR-1 might otherwise face and it potentially gains political favour in that it offers a means to make good on some of the money already poured into Gateway.

*A conceptual image with annotation of the proposed SR-1 Freedom vehicle. Credit: NASA*

Nor is SR-1 intended to be a just demonstration of nuclear electric propulsion operating purely in near-Earth / cislunar space as was the case with DRACO; it is to be a genuine deep-space mission, delivering a payload to Mars in 2029, In doing so it will prove the complete viability of nuclear propulsion in space missions. The payload in question is the Skyfall – and no, it has nothing to do with James Bond!

First revealed as a conceptual study in mid-2025 by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and AeroVironment, Skyfall is designed to build on the experience gained in flying the Ingenuity helicopter on Mars as a part of the Mars 2020 mission (in which it flew 71 times, often in support of the Mars 2020 rover Perseverance. As initially conceived, Skyfall would utilise six updated versions of the Ingenuity design to carry out a range of scouting flights across Mars. For the purposes of the SR-1 mission, the number of helicopters has been reduced to three – but how they will be delivered into the Martian atmosphere remains dramatic.

*When first proposed, Skyfall was to carry six* Ingenuity-class helicopter drones to Mars. As a part of the SR-1 mission the number has been scaled back to three. Credit: AeroVironment / NASA

In short, the mission will use a version of the capsule design used to deliver both Perseverance and the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover Curiosity to Mars in 2021 and 2012 respectively. This will protect the three helicopters both on the journey from Earth to Mars and through the heat and buffeting of entry into the Martian atmosphere. After deploying its main parachutes to slow its decent through the atmosphere and jettisoning its heat shield, the capsule will extend a launch platform underneath itself, allowing the three helicopters to power-up their blades and take flight.

Once airborne, the three craft will operate in parallel, carrying out daily low-level flights of Mars, landing to both recharge their batteries and pass the Martian nights. Each will carry a small science package on board, including high-resolution camera to image the terrain they are overflying (to be used in the planning for future missions to Mars) and ground penetrating radar to reveal what lies beneath that terrain, be it rock, permafrost or deposits of water ice.

However, neither Skyfall nor SR-1 are certain to go ahead as planned. Firstly, there is the extremely tight development / test and construction time frame – just 30 months if NASA really is going to achieve a December 2028 / January 2029 launch for the combined mission.

More particularly for SR-1, there are multiple complications still to be overcome. Perhaps the biggest of these is the reactor feedstock: high-assay low-enriched uranium 235 (aka HALEU, with between 5% and 20% enrichment). While this is ideal for use in compact reactors, it requires a dedicated nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure for its production, and this infrastructure is both limited and already at capacity. Whilst the US government is trying to scale HALEU production, this is not going to happen in the short-term. As such, SR-1 could take considerably longer than 30 months to reach a state in which it might reasonably be launched.

Goodnight, MAVEN

On June 3rd, 2026 NASA confirmed their MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) mission had come to an end after a total of 11 years and the orbiter officially classified as lost. The news came some 6 months after all contact with the orbiter was lost and after a long series of attempts to r-establish communications and to understand what might have happened.

Launched in 2013 and commencing its science mission around Mars in 2014, MAVEN was intended to study the Mars atmosphere in an attempt to understand the composition of the upper reaches of that atmosphere and better understand the mechanism at work in stripping away that atmosphere – particularly that of the solar wind. For over 10 years, MAVEN revealed many of Mars’ secrets and the risks human visiting the planet will face (such as solar storms striking the planet quickly doubling surface radiation levels on a temporary basis).

*An artist’s impression of NASA MAVEN spacecraft orbiting Mars. Credit: NASA*

The first indication that something had gone wrong with MAVEN came on December 4th, 2025, when it failed to resume contact with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) after a routine passage around the far side of Mars. Two days later, JPL received a data fragment from the orbiter, suggesting it was rotating in an unexpected manner and may have deviated from its orbital track. On both December 16th and 20th, 2025, MAVEN passed directly over Gale Crater and the rove Curiosity, but despite the scanning the sky with its high-resolution MastCam along the orbiter’s expected track, there was no sign of MAVEN.

Attempts to regain contact with the orbiter continued at regular intervals throughout early 2026, but by April it was evident that the chances of re-establishing contact were rapidly diminishing. Thus, on By June 3rd, NASA issued a statement terminating the mission while efforts to understand exactly what had gone wrong would continue. Currently, the favoured hypothesis is that MAVEN had an unexpected issue, lost its communications orientation with Earth and was unable to recover. This may have additionally caused the vehicle to drift out of its expected orbit and / or result in its solar arrays being no longer able to generate sufficient power to keep the vehicle’s batteries operating, so it likely ran out of power.

In all, it’s a sad end to a mission that achieved so much, especially given the longevity we’ve come to expect of Mars missions around or on the planet once they have safely entered orbit or landed.

Blue Origin: A Major Malfunction – Update

As per my previous Space Sunday article, on Thursday, May 28th, 2026, a Blue Origin New Glenn booster exploded with tremendous force (estimated to be the equivalent of 1 kiloton of TNT), levelling much of Launch Complex 36 (LC-36) at Canaveral Space Force Base, California, the only facility in the world capable of handling the rocket.

Based on the available images and information available at that time, and as I noted in that article, it seemed that LC-36 would be out of action for at least a year; something that could have major ramifications for Blue Origin and NASA’s Artemis programme. However, June 2nd, 2026, Blue Origin CEO, Dave Limp took to social media with an update on matters which included some surprising news and ended with an even more surprising prediction.

Blue Origin’s launch facilities at LC-36(A) seen in 2025 from the roof of the vehicle and payload integration building, showing a New Glenn rocket atop the transporter-erector vehicle. Credit: Blue Origin

On summary, Limp indicated that:

The propellant farm alongside the launch pad weathered the explosion reasonably well and will not require significant rebuilding / replacement (although images have revealed a couple of the tanks do have significant denting).
The damage done to the main vehicle and payload integration building appears to far less severe than reports suggested, and the water tower serving the deluge / sound suppression system is largely undamaged.
Despite receiving some major damage near its base, the surviving lightning conductor tower can likely be repaired without being demolished – a comment which drew multiple surprised responses given the apparent extent of the damage.
Rather than building a new transporter-erector (TE – the 1800-tonne vehicle used to move New Glenn from the vehicle and payload integration building to the launch pad and then act as the rocket’s launch tower), the company will now pivot to a new vertical launch platform / transporter, something they were already planning to do prior to the explosion.

Most surprisingly, however, was Limp’s prediction that Blue Origin will resume New Glenn operations by the end of 2026. Given all that has to be done, both in terms of the rebuilding work at LC-36 (to say nothing as to how long investigations into the vehicle loss will take & what might yet be required to clear New Glenn to resume flights, it is fairly hard to see how this can be achieved. As such, a lot of eyes will be watching Blue Origin and LC-36 very closely over the next 6-7 months.

Space Sunday: New Glenn – a Major Malfunction

Posted on May 31, 2026 by Inara Pey

The moment of total destruction: the complete New Glenn rocket “stack” is destroyed as 1,200 tonnes of propellant in the first stage tanks explode, send a mushroom fire cloud int the sky over the Florida Space Coast. Via: AP News

On Thursday, May 28th, 2026 the evening skies over Florida’s space coast were lit up by a massive explosion. Believed to be in the one kiloton of TNT range, visible from dozens of miles away and heard in Orlando, 90 kilometres from the coast, the detonation was that of a Blue Origin New Glenn launch vehicle. Not only did it vaporise parts of the rocket, it also dealt a significant blow to the company.

The New Glenn in question was a new vehicle, comprising a main engine system of 7 uprated BE-4 engines (currently the most powerful rocket motors in the world, rated at 2,844.5 kN of thrust each 100 kN more than the SpaceX Raptor 3) a new booster first stage called No, It’s Necessary (a reference to Christopher Nolan’s 2014 film Interstellar) and an upper stage and fairings, both without propellants or payload. It was undergoing a static fire test at Launch Complex 36 (LC-36), Canaveral Space Force Station, ahead of a planned launch scheduled for early June, New Glenn having been cleared to resume flights after being ground following the NG-3 mission in April, in which the rocket’s upper stage malfunctioned.

A static fire test is a routine in which a rocket is loaded with propellants, goes through a launch countdown and then very briefly fires its engines before shutting them down again. The intention is for the propellant systems and engines to “clear their throats” (so to speak), ready for the upcoming launch. To this end, the rocket was loaded with some 1,200 tonnes of liquid oxygen and liquid methane.

*The vehicle explosion could be seen up and down Florida’s space coast, as was heard 90 km away in Orlando, Florida. Credit: various*

The exact cause of the explosion has obviously yet to be determined. The first signs of trouble came as the static fire countdown reached its end. The water deluge sound suppression system was active, smothering the launch pad in hundreds of thousands of litres of water to prevent the acoustic vibrations generated by the seven BE-4 engines being deflected from the launch pad up onto the vehicle and damaging it. As a result, it is very difficult to see from the available video footage as to what happened next: whether the engines fired as expected with an explosion following, or whether the complete engine unit at the base of the rocket detonated on ignition.

What is clear is there was a destructive event at the base of the rocket giving rise to an initial fireball rolling flames up the sides of the vehicle. There was then a second explosion towards the top of the vehicle, roughly at, or just below, the bottom end of the upper stage – possibly an initial explosion of the liquid methane tank. However, both of these explosions were rapidly dwarfed by the vehicle’s entire first stage exploding, likely as a result of the liquid oxygen tank rupturing. This generated a mushroom fireball which rose into the evening sky with debris from the rocket being hurled up and outwards over considerable distances (so far in fact, that parts of the vehicle ended up scattered over the local beaches, caused fires in the coastal scrubland and came down off-shore, prompting several public safety warnings telling the public not to touch or move any debris they might find as it could be toxic).

The loss of a launch vehicle is obviously not an insignificant event – and fortunately, there was no loss of life. However, for Blue Origin, vehicle loss is somewhat secondary to the devastation wrought on LC-36.

This facility, leased from (at the time) the USAF in 2015, was completely rebuilt by Blue Origin at a cost of US $1 billion to be the only launch facility capable of handing New Glenn (a second launch facility planned for Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, has yet to break ground). With this explosion, much of LC-36 has been either completely destroyed or suffered significant damage, and until it is rebuilt New Glenn will not fly, no matter how quickly the cause of the explosion is identified and rectified (assuming it lies within the rocket).

Nor is this simply a matter of clearing the site and starting reconstruction. Rockets are nasty vehicles filled with things that can put a person in hospital – or worse – if not handled correctly. So before any reconstruction can begin, there will need to be a in-situ investigation across the site to clean it of any harmful materials whilst also looking for any clues as to what might have caused the explosion and recovering any surviving parts of the vehicle which might yield their own clues as to a possible cause. Such an investigation + clean-up is a non-trivial matter.

For example, in 2016, a SpaceX Falcon 9 exploded on LC-40 at Canaveral during a static fire test, completely destroying itself and its payload. It took over a year to get the pad back into operational order – the first 4+ months of which involved just such an investigation and clean-up. And that event was much smaller than the New Glenn explosion, with the pad and its infrastructure subjected to far less overall destruction.

Aftermath of destruction at LC-36: 1) the destroyed transporter-erector (TE); 2) the collapsed launch pad footing + elements of the water deluge system and the hydraulic actuators; 3) the collapsed 183-metre tall lightning conductor tower; 4 & 5) water deluge system feed pipes and other infrastructure stuck by the falling tower; 6) major damage or the corner support upright of the second, larger lightning tower (possibly requiring its demolition); 7) propellant tank farm – potential damage unknown; 8) water tower for deluge system, apparently undamaged; 9) (inset) a view of LC-36 as it looked sans the TE, before the explosion. Credit: Asher B.

By contrast and as shown above, the New Glenn explosion has completely wiped out the launch pad and its immediate infrastructure, brought down one of the two 183-metre tall lightning conductor towers and severely damaged the other, and utterly destroyed the transporter erector. The latter was the 1,800 tonne vehicle / platform used to move New Glenn rockets horizontally out of the vehicle and payload integration building a short distance from the launch pad and then, with the assistance of hydraulic actuators at the pad, raise itself, the rocket and the launch platform to a vertical position, and then act as the launch tower for the rocket.

In addition, it appears that the vehicle and payload integration facility close to the pad has suffered significant structural damage. Some reports state this damage extends to equipment and systems inside the building, including the twice-flown New Glenn first stage, Never Tell Me the Odds. However, this latter point was without formal confirmation at the time of writing.

Given all of this, rebuilding and recommission LC-36 is liable to be a lengthy process. Frankly, if all of the statements on the extent of additional damage are correct, it’s hard to see the complex resuming launch operations before the end of 2027 at the earliest.

A wide view of Launch Complex 36, showing the (undamaged) pad and infrastructure to the right, and the vehicle and payload integration facility built by Blue Origin to the lower left. Reports indicate that the latter may have suffered extensive structural and internal damage. Credit: Blue Origin

Impacts

If LC-36 is out of commission for more than a year, then the overall impact is enormous for both Blue Origin and potentially for NASA’s Artemis programme. As it is, it has already put paid (for now, at least) to a pair of vital precursor missions related to Artemis Blue Origin was due to fly later in 2026 and early 2027.

These are the Blue Moon MK1 Pathfinder missions. They were both intended to deliver science payloads to the Moon – in the case of the second, NASA’s VIPER automated rover (which is the unluckiest lucky rover NASA has built, having lost its ride, was then practically cancelled, then resurrected and now is once more without a launch vehicle for the foreseeable future, and so could face cancellation again). More particularly, both missions would have allowed Blue Origin to check-out systems critical to both the Blue Moon MK1 cargo lander and its “big brother”, the Blue Moon MK2 crew lander (called the Human Landing System (HLS) by NASA).

Blue Moon MK1 and Blue Moon MK2 are set to be cornerstones of the Artemis programme, and by testing the systems common to both – the BE-7 engine system, the cryogenic fluid power and propulsion systems, avionics, continuous downlink communications, and precision landing system with an accuracy within 100 metres – during the Pathfinder mission, Blue Origin hoped validate their use aboard both landers and specifically move development the MK2 HLS vehicle significantly forward.

Blue Origin’s 8-metre tall Blue Moon MK1 cargo lander (foreground) and the 16-metre tall Blue Moon MK2 HLS share multiple common systems, which could have been tested on the two Blue Moon MK1 Pathfinder flights had the explosion at LC-36 not occurred. Credit: Blue Origin

A further mission now impacted by the New Glenn explosion – and somewhat linked to the Pathfinder missions – is that of Artemis 3.

Due to take place at the end of 2027, this is intended to provide NASA astronauts with the opportunity to test one or other (or preferably both) of the HLS systems being developed (the other being SpaceX’s Starship-derived vehicle) and evaluate their use and general fitness for purpose. Taken together, the Pathfinder missions (if successful) with their testing of the systems mentioned above, combined with a hands-on test of the actual Blue Moon MK2 HLS would likely provide NASA with a degree of confidence in the Blue Origin lander, possibly to the extend of selecting it over the SpaceX HLS for Artemis 4, the first mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon.

Clearly, with things now being what they are, neither of the Pathfinder missions will likely to take place within the next year (at least), and Blue Origin are unlikely to be able to participate in Artemis 3. The first of these points means that Blue Origin lose a possible advantage they hold over SpaceX when it comes to vehicle selection for Artemis 4. In terms of the latter, NASA face something of a quandary: do they keep things as is, and hope Blue Origin can somehow meet the current Artemis 3 schedule? Or they seek to push Artemis 3 back to 2028 in order to ensure they can properly evaluate both HLS vehicles from the relatively safe location of Earth orbit, or do they go ahead with testing only the SpaceX vehicle and introduce the Blue Origin vehicle without any on-orbit with Artemis 5 or Artemis 6?

The answer to these questions is far from clear – although one would hope common sense would lean NASA (political pressure allowing) towards delaying Artemis 3 until 2028 to give Blue Origin the opportunity to partake in the mission. Indeed, given doubts the agency has voiced about SpaceX’s overall ability to have a HLS system ready for Artemis 3 (which led to Artemis 3 being moved from mid- to late-2027), moving the mission back to 2028 might be seen beneficial overall. However, such a delay will impact on Artemis 4, and any attempt to slip this back into 2029 could meet with significant political resistance.

There is one other potential – but significant, if it happens – impact that might be felt with the loss of the NG-4 vehicle, and it lies not with Blue Origin or NASA, but with United Launch Alliance (ULA).

ULA uses two 2,460 kN “standard” BE-4 engines on the Vulcan-Centaur rocket’s first stage. As such, if the cause of the the loss of the NG-4 vehicle is found lie within the BE-4 (and not restricted to the uprated 2,844.5 kN version), the FAA could order a grounding of the ULA vehicle until such time that Blue origin has rectified whatever the issue might be. Time will very much tell on that.

A (Very) Small Consolation?

*An info graphic on the in-development New Glenn 9×4, including a scale comparison with SpaceX Starship, the Saturn V and the Blue Moon 7×2. Credit: Graphic News*

There is however, one potentially small consolation for Blue Origin after all this.

In November 2025, the company announced it was to develop a very significant upgrade to New Glenn: the 9×4, which it was planning to test fly some time in 2027 (a rather ambitious time frame even considering the commonality of hardware and software between it and the current New Glenn).

This new version of New Glenn (called the 9×4 on account that it will use 9 BE-7 engines on the first stage and 4 BE-3Us on the upper stage)is truly massive, as per the graphic to the right. What is particularly significant about this vehicle is the fact Blue Origin plan to have it capable of delivering 14 tonnes of payload directly to geostationary orbit (GEO) or 20 tonnes to the Moon, both with the first stage reusable – capabilities beyond the reach of SpaceX’s Starship without it being “refuelled” in low Earth orbit.

And why is this a potential consolation for Blue Origin? Well, New Glenn 9×4 itself actually isn’t; it’s what comes with it that is.

In order to operate the new giant, the company needs to significantly upgrade LC-36 in several key areas – such as the pad itself and the infrastructure within / under it to deal with things like the vehicle’s increased mass, the significantly greater output from its engines at lift-off, the need for an enhanced deluge system to deal with higher acoustical issues, etc. This work would have had to be undertaken whilst the complex remained able to launch New Glenn 7×2 (with some 7 further flights originally planned for 2026, and another 4 in early 2027).

As a result of this incident, LC-36 can now be rebuilt from the ground up to fully support both 7×2 and 9×4 launches without having to juggle construction needs around launch schedules. True, it’s not that much of a consolation in the scheme of things; but at this point in time, I’m betting Blue Origin will take what small measures of comfort it can get.

Space Sunday: postcards from Mars, more HLS news

Posted on May 17, 2026June 5, 2026 by Inara Pey

*A September 8th, 2025 Mastcam view looking out over the plains above Jezero Crater, captured by NASA’s Mars 2020* Perseverance *rover. The mountains are some 84 kilometres from the rover, with “Lac de Charmes” in between. This a colour-corrected image, adjusted for Earth-level lighting. Credit: NASA-JPL / MSSS*

NASA’s Perseverance rover celebrated its fifth anniversary on Mars earlier in 2026 as it continues to explore Jezero Crater and its surroundings. Most recently, the rover has been exploring the western rim of the crater and returning some stunning images. Meanwhile, images and data Europe’s Mars Express orbiter – now into its 23rd year studying Mars – has been used to create more high-resolution images and models of surface features on Mars.

Perseverance has been exploring an area NASA has dubbed “Lac des Charmes” (“Lake of Charms”) after a reservoir serving the Champagne and Burgundy regions of France. In the Martian case, the name has been applied to a paleolake, an ancient lake which no longer exists as such – no water, etc., – but which is still identifiable as a former body of water and which lies on the plains beyond the rim of Jezero Crater.

It’s an especially interesting place to study for several reasons, such as it being home to some of the most ancient rock formations the rover is liable to encounter, including megabreccia – fragments of rock blasted out of Isidis Planitia some 50 km from Jezero by one or more meteorite impacts around 3.9 billion years ago.

*A view looking back over the “Arbot” area near “Lac de Charmes”, as captured in 46 images by the Mastcam on* Perseverance *on April 5th, 2026. The mosaic has been colour adjust for Earth levels of natural light. Credit: NASA-JPL / MSSS*

One of the areas imaged by Perseverance showed an area of megabreccia dubbed “Arbot”, which became the subject of study by the rover from April 2026 onwards. The hope of this study is that it might offer some key questions about Mars: the composition of its interior, whether there was a magma ocean on Mars, and what the initial conditions on the planet might have been and whether they might have been conducive to giving life a kick-start.

The exploration of “Lac de Charmes” and “Arbot” brings the total distance driven by the rover to date to just over 42 kilometres. The “selfie” taken at “Arathusa” was also not just for prettiness sake: it allowed mission personnel to see the general condition of the rover, particularly its wheels, helping build confidence that Perseverance is more than capable of continuing its mission for a good time yet as it continues to explore the region above Jezero crater.

Perseverance took this “selfie” on March 11th, 2026, with its Mastcam turned to examine the “Arathusa” rock outcrop. The image is true colour and captured by the MAHLI imager on the rover’s robot arm (which is absent from the image to avoid blocking details, but its shadow can be seen on the ground. Credit: NASA-JPL / MSSS

As NASA was providing updates on Perseverance’s progress, the European Space Agency (ESA) was releasing images recently captured by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) aboard the agency’s long-running Mars Express mission as it continues to study Mars.

The images issued by ESA focus on Shalbatana Vallis, a 1,300 kilometre long channel system within the Xanthe Terra region of Mars. It’s not the first time this particular area on Mars has been studied by Mars Express, but these images are among the clearest taken of the valley thus far.

An overhead view towards the northern end of Shalbatana Vallis (to the left) captured by ESA’s Mars Express orbiter. It shows how the valley is a mix of cloaking sand deposited over millions of years, and a still-exposed valley floor. a large channel near the Red Planet’s equator, as seen by the Mars Express orbiter. Credit: ESA / DLR

What makes Shalbatana Vallis of particular interest is the way it is believed to have been formed. On a world where even formations thought to have been formed as a result of liquid water are thought to have done so over hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years, Shalbatana Vallis is thought to have been created in a single, major event which came somewhat later in the planet’s history that its “wet” period.

The theory goes thus: some 3.5 billion years ago, when all liquid water on Mar had either evaporated or vanished underground (eventually becoming permafrost). There was a body of subsurface water under a part of Xanthe which was both heated and kept under pressure by geothermal heating. However, something happened in the region. Perhaps it was a massive Marsquake or perhaps the impact of another meteorite.

Whatever the cause, it resulted in the ground covering the trapped water collapsing it into chaotic terrain and setting the water free in a powerful, tidal wave-like surge. This surge rushed down the prevailing slope of the land towards Chryse Planitia (itself believed to have once been home to a massive body of liquid water), cutting into the soft surface rock to create a broad, deep gouge in its wake.

*A stereo view created from the HRSC on Mars Express showing the chaotic floor of Shalbatana Vallis. Note the exposed depositions of dark volcanic dust against one wall of the valley. Credit: ESA / DLR*

In the intervening 3.5 billion years since Shalbatana Vallis was carved, the lines of the valley have been softened by dust and sand deposits blown into it by successive Martians winds and seasonal dust storms. However, it has remained the subject of study by both ESA (via Mars Express) and NASA because of the evidence relating to its formation and what it might yet reveal about the ancient past of the planet, hence these images.

The existence of features like Shalbatana Vallis not only provide evidence that Mars was once capable of hosting liquid water on its surface, they also point to the fact that the planet’s history was a lot more varied and complex than simply being a case of formation, hot, wet, cool, dry, cold.

A video made up of images of the Xanthe region and Shalbatana Vallis captured by Mars Express and released in 2025

Psyche’s Mars Fly-by

Mars remains a focus for this article as it briefly had a visitor on Friday, May 15th, 2026, when NASA’s Psyche spacecraft passed around the planet.

Launched in 2023, the 2.6 tonne spacecraft, propelled by solar-powered Hall-effect thrusters, is en-route to study the asteroid 16 Psyche. This is an M-type asteroid roughly 220 kilometres across orbiting the Sun in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. It is the heaviest such asteroid such discovered – the “M” classification indicating it has a high metallic content. Astronomers believe it could actually be the exposed silicate-iron core of protoplanet, having has its crust and mantle rippled away very early in the history of the solar system and following a collision with another such body. As such, it is hoped that a study of 16 Psyche could reveal more about planetary formation within the solar system.

*An artist’s impression of the 2.6 tonne Psyche spacecraft with its 24.7 metre span of solar arrays used to provide electrical power to its systems and Hall-effect thrusters. Credit: NASA*

Even with its Hall-effect thrusters, and its massive solar arrays used to capture the Sun’s energy and use it to power the thrusters, NASA’s Psyche spacecraft cannot not reach its destination unaided, hence the fly-by of Mars. This allowed the spacecraft to use Mars’ gravity to give itself both a boost in speed – some 19,848 km/h at the time it approached Mars – and to swing itself onto an orbit inclination and overall trajectory to intercept the orbit of 16 Psyche as it travels around the Sun.

The manoeuvre was completed remotely and successfully, the spacecraft coming to within 4,500 kilometres of Mars. Furthermore, the entire approach to Mars and the fly-by were used to further calibrate the spacecraft’s science instruments – which hopefully included takings pictures of Mars while relatively close to the planet using its stereo imagers.

Psyche is now on the second leg of its journey. It is due to enter an initial orbit around 16 Psyche in July 2029, where it will carry out further instrument calibration tests whilst lowering its orbit to some 700 km over the asteroid. It will then commence the first of four science campaigns, each as a different distances from the asteroid. This first campaign, with the spacecraft in a roughly polar orbit will last for 56 days, imaging and mapping 16 Psyche’s surface from a roughly polar orbit.

In the second campaign, the spacecraft will close to just over 300 km above the asteroid for a further 92 days in roughly polar orbit and examine it in more detail. From here it will translate to a near equatorial orbit around the asteroid at just 75km above its surface, allowing it to study those parts of the asteroid it was unable to image clearly due to lighting issues in the earlier campaign.

The spacecraft will then remain in this low orbit for 100 days before translating back to 190km from 16 Psyche, where it will remain for a further 100 days for the final science campaign. After this, and some 26 months after arriving at the asteroid, the plan is to shutdown the spacecraft as its propellants will be close to expended, and ensure it is safely “parked” orbiting the asteroid.

Blue Origin Delivers Lunar Lander Training Mock-up to NASA

Following my previous piece on the Artemis Human Landing System (HLS) vehicles, NASA and Blue Origin announced the latter has now delivered a full-scale training / study mock-up of the crew module for their Blue Moon Mark 2 (MK2) HLS vehicle.

*Blue Origin’s mock-up of the Blue Moon MK2’s crew module as delivered to NASA’s Space Vehicle Mock-up Facility (SVMF) ready for further study and astronaut training. Credit NASA*

The unit has been delivered to Johnson’s Space Vehicle Mock-up Facility (SVMF) and lacks the both the engine section that will sit below the crew module and the cryogenic fuel tanks that will sit above on the actual HLS vehicle, as these are not required in a mock-up.

At SVMF, the Blue Moon unit joins mock-ups of space station elements, SpaceX Crew Dragon vehicles and, most relevantly, the Orion spacecraft. It will be used by NASA and Blue Origin to conduct a series of human-in-the-loop tests (testing the design and its systems with human interaction), including mission scenarios, mission control communications, spacesuit checkouts, and preparations for simulated moonwalks. Feedback from the these and simulations will then go back into overall engineering and production decisions affecting the construction of the actual lander vehicles.

*An interior shot of the Blue Moon MK2 lander showing the main flight deck area. Credit: NASA / Blue Moon*

In all of this, the new unit builds on work initiated using an earlier mock-up located at Blue Origin’s own facilities, together with practical testing of a prototype of the vehicle’s airlock in NASA’s the Neutral Buoyancy Lab in 2025.

Artemis 3: More Details Released

On Wednesday May 13th, 2026, NASA provided further information on the revised Artemis 3 mission currently scheduled for late 2027.

Originally established as the first crewed mission to attempt a return to the lunar surface under the Artemis banner, the mission was re-defined by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman in February 2026 to be a Earth-orbiting crewed test of one or both of the planned HLS vehicles. Prior to this decision being taken, the only in-space testing of either of the planned HLS vehicles required by NASA would have been uncrewed – hardly ideal.

In the Apollo era, for example, there was crewed testing of the Apollo lunar lander in Earth orbit during the Apollo 9 mission. This allowed astronauts gain hands-on experience in using the vehicle (e.g. piloted control and manoeuvring, ensuring the internal spaces are fit for purpose in zero gravity, etc.) within the environment in which it was designed to operate will before it was flown to the Moon as a part of an actual mission.

The Artemis 3 European Service Module (ESM) mounted on its vehicle adapter and about to undergo acoustic testing in NASA’s Operations and Checkout Facility at Kennedy Space Centre, May 7th, 2026. Credit: NASA / Jess Ruffa

However, other than announcing the use of Artemis 3 for physical testing prior to Artemis 4 and the first planned landing, there has been little further information on how Artemis 3 will work. Some of this detail has now been given, including:

The mission duration is to be longer than that of Artemis 2; as well as being used to test one or both of the HLS systems, it will include further tests on Orion’s own systems and capabilities.
The Space Launch System (SLS) booster to be used on the mission will not include the upper Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), as this is not required in order for the crew-carrying Orion vehicle to reach Earth orbit, where the HLS vehicle(s) are to be tested (it can do this using its European Service Module). Instead, a dummy “spacer” will replace the ICPS.
NASA plan to use the mission to also launch additional cubesat missions (as they did with Artemis 2) and is seeking proposal for such missions.

Artemis 3 is set to be one of the most complex mission NASA has yet undertaken, involving potentially involving the co-ordinated launch of three separate vehicles from three different providers, the on-orbit rendezvous and docking between Orion and up to two different orbiting targets, and the requirement for Orion to move between different orbits in order to do so. As such, there is more to come in terms of the mission and its parameters and goals in the coming months.

Space Sunday: looking at the Artemis HLS vehicles

Posted on May 10, 2026 by Inara Pey

The Artemis Human landing Systems (aka lunar landers) are being developed by private companies, with Blue Origin developing the Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS (l) and SpaceX the Starship HLS. Credits: (2024) Blue Origin and SpaceX

As is well-known, the US hopes to make a return to the surface of the Moon with astronauts in 2028. This has been, and remains, a questionable time frame for a number of reasons. As I recently reported, NASA’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report indicating the new xEVA suits Axiom Space is developing for use on the International Space Station (ISS) and in lunar missions might not be ready for lunar operations until 2031.

Another bump in the road for 2028 is the availability of a vehicle to actually get crews from lunar orbit down to the surface of the Moon and back to orbit again. Again as I’ve oft mentioned, two companies are in the running to supply this vehicle – called the Human Landing System (HLS) in NASA parlance: SpaceX and Blue Origin. The two systems are very different to one another, and each has built-in complexities, some of which are down to NASA’s decision making, others are due to the choices being made by the two companies.

The biggest NASA-defined challenge is that both HLS vehicle must utilise cryogenic propulsion using either liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (Blue Origin) or liquid oxygen and liquid methane (SpaceX). The problem here is twofold: mass, and the fact that cryogenic propellants, as the name indicates, require very low temperatures and relatively large volumes in order function, otherwise they will simply (and dangerously) “boil-off”.

The mass of the propellants means that neither HLS system can be launched with the propellant load needed to reach the Moon, enter orbit and then deliver a crew to the surface of the Moon and back to orbit. They have to launched sans propellants and “refuelled” in space. This is turn brings up two issues.

The first is that no-one has ever performed the large-scale (100+ tonnes) transfer of cryogenic propellants in zero gravity (“refuelling” of the International Space Station is commonplace, but uses hypergolic propellants, which are completely different in nature and handling). Thus, both companies must develop and test mechanisms for the transfer of propellants from one vehicle (the “refuelling tanker(s)”) to another, and test then well before 2028 and Artemis 4.

A 2022 concept rendering of two SpaceX Starship vehicles mated back-to-back for cryogenic propellant transfers. Other options under consideration are an engines-to-engines docking for propellant transfer or placing a “fuel depot” in orbit and having the “tanker” missions fill it, before the Starship HLS visits it to take propellants it needs. Credit: SpaceX

The problem of boil-off is potentially more significant. As noted, cryogenics require extremely low temperatures if they are to remain liquid. Should they rise above the required temperatures they will sublimate to gas (boil off), drastically increasing their volume. Thus, if some of this gaseous propellant is not vented from the tanks, it could end up rupturing them completely, destroying the vehicle. Hence why rockets using cryogenics are seen venting clouds of propellants between fuelling and launch.

In space, any vehicle using cryogenics will spend the majority of its time in temperatures of around 121ºC. Even with tank insulation, this means there is likely to be significant boil off, meaning one of three things (or a possible combination of two of them):

The Super Heavy booster used in Starship’s 4th integrated flight test (2024) venting boiled-off liquid oxygen from its upper tank and liquid methane from the lower during a propellant load test. Credit: SpaceX

The excess gases must be vented to space (and the inevitable thrust they cause countered), which in turn will require further propellants to offset such loss prior to the vehicle leaving orbit.
Or, the vehicle must include some means of capturing the gas, and refrigerating back down and cycling it back to the tanks – all of which increases vehicle complexity and mass.
Or the vehicle must be equipped with some passive means of keeping the propellants as close as possible to their desired liquid temperatures, minimising boil-off, again potentially increasing vehicle mass and complexity.

Thus, both SpaceX and Blue Origin must both find a way of minimising this propellant loss. In the case of SpaceX, this appears to be primarily in the form of loading as much in the way of propellants as possible into the vehicle so that the overall venting does not impact the vehicle’s capabilities; hence the estimates that 8-16 Starship “refuelling” launches might be required for the SpaceX HLS to carry out its mission.

Rather than relying on a massive HLS vehicle with huge propellant tanks, Blue Origin have opted for a much smaller, lighter vehicle (45 tonnes when loaded with propellants compared to the approx. 238 tonnes of the SpaceX HLS when loaded with propellants). However, it needs to be supported by an additional vehicle: Cislunar Transporter.

The latter is a combination of propellant tanks (which will incorporate some form of “zero boil-off” capability Blue Origin has apparently developed) and space-going tug. Following launch, it is designed to be refuelled by a number of New Glenn launches with around 100 tonnes of propellant. It will then dock with the Blue Origin HLS, once launched, and deliver it to lunar orbit, transferring some of its propellants to the lander’s own tanks so it can carry lout its mission.

In addition, and unlike the SpaceX HLS, the Cislunar Transporter will be capable of returning to Earth, where it can be loaded with further propellants and thus service additional flights of the Blue Origin HLS to / from the lunar surface.

*A rendering of the Blue Origin Cislunar Transporter in Earth orbit and with its solar arrays for electrical power unfurled. Credit: Blue Origin (2025)*

But even with smaller, lower-mass vehicles, Blue Origin faces pretty much the same challenges as SpaceX in terms of propellant loading the storage. So, leaving these issues aside, how is the general development of both systems going and which is likely to get the prestige of returning astronauts to the surface of the Moon first?

On paper, both companies appear to be pretty neck-and-neck in terms of vehicle development. SpaceX for example, has completed around 50 target milestones with its Starship-derived HLS. These include land testing of an airlock test article; the development (with NASA) of an elevator system to be deployed when the vehicle is on the Moon in order to get crews two and from their facilities on the vehicle (roughly 45 metres above the lunar surface) and “ground level”; a “full test” of the life support systems; testing the Raptor engine’s ability to re-light in a wide range of temperature environments; development and testing of the SpaceX-Orion docking system and the vehicle’s avionics, flight and navigation software; mock-ups and testing of pre-launch ground support infrastructure, etc.

Blue Origin has also completed a similar number of tests on both software and hardware, including vacuum testing of the BE-7 engine to be used by their HLS, their cargo lander and the Cislunar Transporter. However, their testing is potentially ahead of SpaceX in some areas, and liable to quickly move ahead in others.

*A mock-up of the airlock system to be used on Blue Origin’s HLS vehicle being evaluated by astronauts in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, Johnson Space Centre, 2025. Credit: Blue Origin*

For example, where SpaceX has been testing its airlock design on land, Blue Origin has completed testing their airlock system within NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at the Johnson Space Centre. This has allowed space suited astronauts to test the airlock in similar circumstances to those they will experience on the Moon.

As well as this, the company has an integrated, full-scale mock-up of their HLS vehicle. This has allowed Blue Origin and NASA to collaborate directly on the design of the vehicle, including accessibility to critical systems, placement and operation of manual flight control systems, data displays, life-support systems, and the layout of essential crew facilities (toilet, food preparation air, food and beverage storage, personal spaces, etc.), in readiness for the manufacture of the initial HLS craft.

Further, later this year Blue Origin is due to launch the first of its Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo landers to the Moon. Whilst much smaller than the Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS, and only capable of delivering up to 3 tonnes to the Moon’s surface (no “refuelling” required), Blue Moon Mark 1 uses the same automated flight control, space navigation, landing guidance, data communications and propulsion management software as will be used on the Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS. Thus this first Mark 1 mission, featuring the lander Endurance, will be both a practical mission delivering two NASA experiments to the lunar surface and serve as a “pathfinder” test of these automated systems and the capabilities of the BE-7 engine.

If successful, Endurance will be followed in early-to-mid 2027 by a second cargo mission to deliver NASA’s cancelled-then-resurrected VIPER lunar rover mission to the Moon. Assuming either or both of these missions perform as expected throughout, they will pretty much indicate the flight software and BE-7 are fit-for-use within the Blue Moon HLS.

Currently, Endurance is at Blue Origin’s facilities at Kennedy Space Centre, Florida, where it will be integrated with its launch vehicle. Prior to arriving at KSC, Endurance had undergone extensive thermal vacuum chamber testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Centre, exposed the thermal and pressure environments it will face during its mission, and testing its overall readiness to fly.

The commonality of systems is also seen with the Cislunar Transporter. This was originally going to be developed by Lockheed Martin, but is now an in-house project at Blue Origin. This means that as well as utilising the same BE-7 engine, the overall design of the Transporter borrows heavily from the New Glenn upper stage, greatly reducing its development cycle and allowing it to use the Tanks and engine mounts, etc., from the New Glenn upper stage, greatly simplifying its design whilst enabling it to be manufactured on the same production line.

Like Endurance, an initial Cislunar Transporter prototype spent mid-2024 undergoing extensive vacuum and thermal testing at a facility at Edwards Air Force Base, California. As a result, production of the Transporter is due to start at Blue Origin’s primary plant at Kennedy Space Centre.

*The SpaceX HLS airlock test article developed for ground-based testing of the system. Credit: SpaceX*

It is this progress within Blue Origin, countered by a perceived lack of significant progress by SpaceX on their HLS through 2025, which led NASA’s former Administrator, Sean Duffy to announce the first Artemis crewed landing on the Moon would not be an SpaceX exclusive, but would feature whichever HLS system was fit-for-purpose and ready for a 2028 launch; a decision since confirmed by the current Administrator, Jared Isaacman.

Under Isaacman’s leadership, there is to be a crewed Earth-orbital test of the HLS vehicles in 2027 under the Artemis 3 banner. This test could be with both HLS vehicles, if both are ready in time, or by whichever is available, and will be used in a final determination as to which vehicle Artemis 4 will use.

However, whether Blue Origin or SpaceX will be in position to meet a 2027 HLS test flight is entirely open to debate. Both companies have already asked NASA to push back the test flight from mid-2027 to late 2027, which the agency has done, but Blue Origin remains somewhat tight-lipped about the overall development status of Blue Moon Mk2 and Cislunar Transporter.

Meanwhile, in promising to accelerate its HLS development, SpaceX has set itself some hefty goals for 2026, especially considering we’re fast closing in on being half-way through the year. These include:

Actually getting a Starship to orbit.
Demonstrating Starship can reach orbit with a “useful payload” – thus far, the “version 1” and “version 2” variants have either sacrificed payload lift capability in favour of just getting to sub-orbital velocity, or sacrificed the ability to achieve orbit in favour of carrying a modest payload – Starlink demonstrators – to sub-orbital velocity. Thus, hopes are now pinned on “version 3”, due to make it s first launch attempt sometime in the next month.
Carry out an on-orbit cryogenic refuelling mission.
Undertake a “long duration” Starship flight. This was initially defined by the SpaceX CEO as a mission to Mars, now all but abandoned for 2026 (and likely the foreseeable future), leaving the context of the flight uncertain.

There is also the matter of actually recovering Starship vehicles as they return to Earth. This is an essential part of the equation for SpaceX, as the company has indicated it will pay for all of the HLS “refuelling” launches, estimated at up to US $400 million a throw if an entirely new vehicle is used for each if these launches.

Given all that has to be achieved in just 18 months, it may yet ben that the Artemis 3 mission might be further pushed back. If so, then Artemis 4 will likely not occur until 2029 at the earliest (assuming the Axiom xEVA space suits are ready by then). If this happens, then the door to which HLS system is used would again be thrown wide open.

However, there are two additional factors outside of development time frames and general vehicle readiness which could play into Blue Origin’s hands, at least as far as the Artemis 4 mission is concerned: a) vehicle size and mass distribution, b) risk mitigation.

The SpaceX Starship HLS is 52 metres tall and 10 metres in diameter, with a relatively narrow landing leg spread compared to its height. When it comes to landing on the Moon, with the majority of its propellant spent, it also has a very high centre of gravity due to the engines and propulsion systems, crew facilities, power and life support systems, etc., all located in the upper third of the vehicle. Blue Moon Mk2 is only 15.3 metres tall and its centre of mass is in is lower third. It also follows the Apollo lunar lander approach of having a broad spread with its landing legs for increased stability and support.

The Blue Moon HLS lander (l) compared to the Apollo lunar lander (l). Note how the Blue Moon vehicle has a low centre of mass – all major systems and crew facilities at the base, the largely-empty propellant tanks, together with the solar arrays (shown folded) at the top – and a broad set of landing legs similar to Apollo’s to better support it. Credit: Blue Origin

Whilst it is essential all Artemis missions to the Moon minimise the risks faced by their crews, given the “first time” nature of Artemis 4, the use of Blue Origin Mk2 might be seen as the better choice of lander, simply because its squat, low centre of mass design minimises the risk of it toppling over when landing on a unknown surface. The same cannot be said with certainty for the SpaceX design, where even a minor depression directly under one of its landing legs could result in disaster. As such, use of this vehicle might be better suited until after “eyes on the ground” have been able to more accurately determine relatively “safe” areas where it might land.

So, which vehicle do I think will get to fly with Artemis 4? Allowing for the aforementioned caveat of missions being pushed back and assuming SpaceX don’t find a way of testing an uncrewed version of their vehicle to better assess the risk of toppling-on-landing, I do tend to lean towards Blue Origin. While they face challenges – some of them the same as SpaceX, as noted – their approach just comes across as cleaner, more fit-for-purpose. But then, I don’t work for NASA.

	Iris Aurora on SL23B Meet the Lindens: The Pr…
	Inara Pey on SL23B Meet the Lindens: Philip…
	Edie Starling on SL23B Meet the Lindens: Philip…
	Inara Pey on Melusina’s Labyrinth and…
	melusinaparkin on Melusina’s Labyrinth and…

Zevzda Leak: NASA and Roscosmos Again at Odds

Share this:

Artemis 3 Mission Profile

Share this:

Goodnight, MAVEN

Blue Origin: A Major Malfunction – Update

Share this:

Impacts

A (Very) Small Consolation?

Share this:

Psyche’s Mars Fly-by

Blue Origin Delivers Lunar Lander Training Mock-up to NASA

Artemis 3: More Details Released

Share this:

Share this: