Tag: Spaceflight

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

Posted on 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 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 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.

A rendering of how 16 Psyche as it might appear to the Psyche spacecraft whilst in orbit around the asteroid. Credit: NASA

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 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.

Space Sunday: Radiation and propulsion, interstellar asteroids and, yes, Artemis

Posted on by Inara Pey
Lockheed Martin is one of several organisations which has drawn up plans and renderings for a possible humans to Mars mission. The Mars Base Camp interplanetary craft utilises the Orion spacecraft as the command and control facility, with a cryogenic propulsion system somewhat similar to the (now cancelled) ULA Interim Cryogenic Propulsion stage (ICPS) used with current SLS rockets, together with both habitat and laboratory modules for crew space, and two additional Orion vehicles for use as orbital excursion craft whilst in Mars orbit. Such spacecraft and mission face a wealth of issues before they can become a reality. from crew mental health through to technical issues such as radiation shielding and propulsion systems. Credit: Lockheed Martin.

I’ve written on numerous occasions about the various challenges facing any human mission to Mars. Perhaps chief among these challenges are the matters of radiation exposure and transit time. As I’ve noted in past articles (such as this one) on this topic, crews going to Mars face multiple risks, just two of which are radiation (both solar radiation and Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs)) and transit times.

The former is particularly deadly in that solar storms can deliver lethal doses of radiation exposure over a matter of a few hours (or less). However, they can be mitigated through the use of careful mission planning (avoiding, where possible, launch windows when solar activity is at or near its peak); and providing on-board radiation shelters which use a dozen centimetres or so of a suitable material (such as water) which can be used should a storm threaten.

By contrast, GCRs are less “immediate” in the risk they present, but they are constant and all-pervasive. They are also far more high energy than solar radiation, making shielding against them a more complex issue. requiring a lot more in the way of shielding. For example, gamma radiation from a typical solar storm requires around 13-15cm of water to mitigate much of its threat; GCRs require at least two metres of water (at one tonne per cubic centimetre) to reduce the threat by 50%. And while they might not be immediately deadly, GCRs can cumulatively have a major impact on health, such as reactivating cancer-giving strains of the herpes virus normally dormant in the human body, such as the highly contagious Epstein–Barr virus (EBV).

Ergo, crewed Mars vehicle require more wide-ranging and effective shielding in order to reduce the long-term impact of GCRs on Mars-bound (or Earth-returning) crews. Currently, two such shielding materials exist: Kevlar and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Both are very effective in absorbing GCRs – just 5 cm of either will do the same job as 2 metres of water. However, while both could be incorporated into the structure of a crewed Mars vehicle, they would need to offer protection right across all crewed areas, not just a relatively complex shelter. As both have a mass in the same orbit as water (1 gram per cubic centimetre for the latter; 980 grams per cubic centimetre for HDPE and up to 1.44 grams for Kevlar), this means that both could come with a significant mass penalty.

As such, more lightweight – and preferably more efficient – shielding materials are required. One of the most promising is that of carbon nanotubes, some of which are very efficient in dealing with various forms of radiation. Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) can reflect up to 99.9% of solar electromagnetic radiation striking them, whilst boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs) can absorb some 72% of neutrons (common to GCRs) in just a thin layer – more than can be achieved by using 5 cm of HDPE or Kevlar. In fact, NASA’s Langley research centre has in the past experimented with trying to “weave” BNNTs into structure that could be used within habitat units of spacecraft.

NASA Langley is working on using “GCR-proof” BNNTs within structures such as habitat units, space vehicle elements – and even as a flexible lining in space suits. Credit: NASA

The problem here is that nanotubes are both expensive to manufacture and difficult to manipulate / use. Hence why, in the 35 years since serious nanotube production started, less than 10,000 tonnes have been produced world-wide. However, a team of researchers at the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), have been looking at the potential for nanotubes in a range of applications  – including their use as a shielding material – and have developed a means of potentially overcoming the issue of using nanotubes to create materials the application of 3D printing.

In particular they have developed a means to combine both SWCNTs and BNNTs into “mats” of material which can be “woven” together as a part of the printing process to fulfil a number of roles. Most particularly, in terms of space applications, these “mats” remain all of the radiation shielding capabilities common to both SWCTs and BNNTs. Thus, single layers of a “mat” could be used to provide individual protection for circuitry and chips forming the electronics on robot spacecraft, or be layered to produce very lightweight, efficient and very flexible material for shielding all the habitable areas of a crewed spaceship. What’s more, the material can withstand massive temperature swings (from -196ºC to +250ºC), potentially allowing it to be used both internally and externally on space vehicles.

This material represents a completely new concept in shielding technology-it is as thin as tape and as flexible as rubber yet simultaneously blocks both electromagnetic waves and neutron radiation.

– Dr. Joo Youngho, principal investigator, Ultrathin, Stretchable, and 3D-Printable Complementary Nanotubes–Polymer Composites for Multimodal Radiation Shielding in Extreme Environments

The research still requires a lot more work before this approach can be thought of as truly viable, but the implications of such a shielding capability for something like crewed missions to Mars would be enormous.

Potential uses of the new 3D printed nanotube “mat” developed by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) including full spacecraft radiation shielding (A), to individual protection for electronic components (B) to creating more rigid forms (G, H, J) and the ability of the fibre to shield against radiation (D, E). Credit: KIST

Currently, it takes between 6 and 9 months to travel between Earth and Mars (or vice versa) when launching at the most energy-efficient times (approximately once every 26 months). This could put significant strain on a crew, limited as they would be to just a small circle of people with whom they could communicate in real-time and the limited amount of space available within their spacecraft in which they might fine solitude and peace keeping their own company.

However, if we had a more efficient propulsion system, one that could use a lot less fuel far more efficiently and for longer, then it would be possible to break out of the current 26-month, 6-9 month transit flight constraints to a greater or lesser degree. This would help reduce the stresses that might otherwise build-up in such a restricted environment, and also help reduce (to a degree) the crew’s deep-space radiation exposure risks.

One way to achieve this would be through the use of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP). However, such a system has yet to be developed and brings with it the need for shielding for the crew against the nuclear reaction, with all the added mass and complexity that brings.

Another alternative is that of electric propulsion. This is not as powerful as NTP and cannot even match the specific impulse that can be generated by chemical motors. However, it is a) highly efficient, b) already in use and c) unlike chemical rockets, it can maintain its thrust more-or-less continuously for comparatively little fuel mass. Take NASA’s mission to the asteroid 16 Pysche, for example. This uses Hall-effect thrusters which, while relatively low-power have maintained a steady thrust since the mission launched 2.5 years ago, accelerating the spacecraft from a few tens of thousand km/h as it departed Earth orbit to more than 135,000 km/h today – and it is still accelerating for the time being; all for just 1.6 tonnes of propellant.

A small-scale Hall-effect thrust producing thrust (left) and shut down (r). Credit: unknown

However, the Psyche spacecraft masses just 2,6 tonnes overall. A crewed Mars vehicle, with its habitat units, control centre, solar arrays for electrical power, life support systems and so on, is going to mass tens of tonnes (a minimum of 45 tonnes has been estimated for just a basic habitat/lander craft). As such, if electric propulsion is to be used, then much more powerful thruster systems will be required.

This is exactly what NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has been working on: a “next generation” nuclear-electric motor called the magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster. Rather then just relying on electric power to drive the thruster, the MPD introduces a magnetic field into the drive process, making the thruster far more efficient and with a greater output. It also utilises lithium as a the propellant rather than the more usual xenon or krypton, for an increased energy output. As a result, a test article of the MPD has already proven itself to be able to operate for relatively long periods (albeit days rather than months or years), producing a steady 120 kilowatts of thrust, more than 25 times that produced by the hall-effect thrusters on the 16 psyche mission.

This is an impressive start, but to power a crewed spaceship of the kind currently being considered for human Mars missions, the propulsion system would have to be capable of consistently generating up to four megawatts of energy, both to accelerate the vehicle during the first half of its voyage out from Earth (or Mars) and then as a braking system to reduce its velocity to a point where it can enter orbit around its destination. However, the JPL team are reasonably confident that with time and experimentation, they could likely iterate the MPD to a point were it is consistently generating around a megawatt of power, thus allowing multiple engines (4-6, allowing for reserve engines being carried to deal with any failures) to be used to propel a potential Earth-Mars-Earth vehicle, all of which would require far less fuel than any chemical propulsion system, and would not require refuelling at Mars.

There are a few wrinkles in this approach that need to be addressed, however. For example, to produce such a level of power output, the MHD would also produce a lot of heat – around a constant 2,800ºC. Thus, the materials used in the thruster system would have to be capable of running continuously in the face of this temperature for thousands of hours of use. As such, much more in the way of development and testing is required before the MPD thruster would be ready for practical use – which will take years or possibly decades. But once developed and tested, it could offer a means to either shorten the transit times between Earth and Mars by virtue of its constant thrust, or deliver heavier payload to Mars over roughly similar time-frames as the current Hohmann orbits, and with none of the angst people have around nuclear thermal systems.

3I/Atlas

On July 1st, 2025, 3I/ATLAS was confirmed as the third known interstellar object (ISO) to be passing through the solar system. It also became the third such object to ignite daft claims that such objects are of alien manufacture sent to spy on us, despite the evidence it is lactually a comet. By the end of October 2025, it was passing around the Sun at the start of its way out of the solar system, and by April 2026 it was once again passing beyond the orbit of Jupiter.

Images of 3I/ATLAS acquired by the Moons and Jupiter Imaging Spectrometer (MAJIS) instrument aboard the ESA’s Juice mission, using different colour filters to reveal more about the comet’s coma. Credit: ESA

However, between July 2025 and April 2025, 3I/Atlas was the subject of intense study by observatories on the ground and in space, with some interesting discoveries being made along the way. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), for example, revealed the comet’s coma (the cloud of dust and material formed when a comet approaches the Sun and its ices sublimate, releasing material) to be composed primarily of carbon dioxide in an 8:1 ratio compared to water, much higher that with solar comets, which typically have a 4:1 ratio; indicating the comet likely formed in a very different environment compared to our own solar system.

This view was further enhanced following observations of the comet made by the Atacama Large Millimetre/sub-millimetre Array (ALMA) located high in the Chilean Andes. These revealed 3I/ATLAS is made of an astonishingly high ratio of semi-heavy water (HDO, also known as deuterated water, on account of one of the hydrogen atoms being replaced by a deuterium atom) relative to water.

On Earth, approximately 1 in 3,200 water molecules are HDO (with one in 41 million being heavy water (D2O), with which semi-heavy water should not be confused). On 3I/Atlas, the abundance of HDO is around 40 times higher than the abundance of semi-heavy water on Earth. Not only does this point to the comet being formed in a much colder – likely around -243ºC – environment than found within our solar system, it was also subject to very little in the way of stellar radiation, suggesting it formed at the very outer edge of its originating star system.

Further, as it passed around the Sun and was at its most active, the comet started outgassing more and more methane. This led to the theory that in its passage towards the Sun and the initial formation of its coma and tail, 3I/Atlas had shed the last of its cosmic ray irradiated outer shell, allowing its more “pristine” (i.e. preserved from the days of its formation) inner layers to be exposed to sublimation. In particular the abundance of methane being released further underlined the idea that the comet had formed in an extremely cold environment.

This is important because it directly impacts our understanding of the formation of stellar systems. These generally hold that star systems are born of relatively “hot”, compressed clouds of dust and gas, the majority of which collapses under gravity to form the central star, with any planets, asteroid, comets and such like forming in the immediate aftermath of the star igniting, when the “left over” material is still relatively dense – and warm – as it surrounds the newly-born star. Thus, 3I/Atlas potentially hints at an alternative path of stellar evolution we have yet to identify and understand.

Artemis Update

Following-on from my previous Space Sunday piece, the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will be used in 2027’s Artemis 3 mission, completed its 1,450 kilometre journey by canal, river and sea from NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans to the turn basin at Kennedy Space Centre’s (KSC) Complex 39 on April 27th, 2026.

The stage, lacking its four RS-25 engine units, which will installed as vehicle stacking starts within Kennedy’s Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) reach the wharf in the basin safely aboard the Pegasus transport barge. Following its arrival, on April 28th, the stage was transferred by road from the basin to the VAB in readiness for vehicle stacking to commence.

The NASA transport barge Pegasus is manoeuvred by its tug in readiness for mooring at the Complex 39 wharf at Kennedy Space Centre. Within it sits the core stage of the SLS booster to be used on the Artemis 3 mission scheduled for 2027. Credit: NASA

At the same time as the stage was arriving at KSC, it was confirmed that Artemis 3 – planned as a crewed test of the available lunar lander vehicles required for missions to the surface of the Moon – has been pushed back from mid-2027 to an October-November 2027 time frame. This is apparently to allow both SpaceX and Blue Origin, the two contractors charged with supplying NASA with crew-capable lunar landers, with more time to have their first vehicles ready for testing in Earth orbit.

Whilst NASA is playing down the pushback, there is already mounting feeling in some circles that the mission will ultimately be pushed back until early to mid 2028, simply because there will not be any lander vehicle ready for Earth-orbit testing by a crew by late 2027.

On April 28th, 2026 NASA also released the first image of the heat shield used on the Artemis 2 mission to project the Orion capsule from the searing heat of re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere at the end of the mission.

As regular readers will know, there was considerable concern surrounding the heat shield after an identical unit used on the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission in December 2022 showed unexpectedly high levels of damage. Investigations revealed the worst of this damage – deep pits and holes within the ablative material of the heat shield were the results of gasses trapped in the layer being super-heated as the spacecraft “skipped” through the atmosphere before fully re-entering, resulting in them “blowing out” sections of the heat shield’s layers as they violently expanded.

As a result of this, the heat shields to be used from Artemis 3 mission onwards were put through a redesign prior to fabrication, but the shield for Artemis 2 had already been manufactured and installed – so the re-entry profile for the mission was changed in order to reduce the risk of outgassing and damage to the heat shield. Even so, fears remained as to the shield’s fitness for purpose.

Clearly it was up to the task as evidenced by the successful return to Earth by Artemis 2 crew, and within the image released by NASA on April 28th, it is clear that the heat shield more then withstood the stresses of the revised re-entry profile – even if the image is itself a most unusual one.

The Artemis 2 heat shield – scorched and lightly scored but in far better shape that the heat shield from Artemis 1 – as seen from underwater as the Orion capsule to which it is attached awaits recovery following its splashdown in the Pacific Ocean after a successful mission. Credit: US Navy

So keen were NASA engineers to see the state of the heat shield, that even as the Orion capsule floated in the Pacific Ocean off the Californian coast, and the crew were being recovered, a camera-equipped US Navy diver was tasked with swimming under the capsule and photographing the heat shield from below. The result is a somewhat eerie, almost sci-fi like underwater image of the heat shield, streaked with burn and ablation marks across its entire surface – as would be expected – but without any of the deep chadding and pitting seen on the Artemis 1 heat shield.

Obviously, the heat shield, recovered with the rest of the capsule and now back with NASA, will be examined more thoroughly, but this initial picture finally put to rest concerns that the Orion heat shield might be somehow, and potentially fatally, flawed.

Space Sunday: Curiosity’s discoveries and some updates

Posted on by Inara Pey

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.

The “Mary Anning” rock, the site of the discovery of more than 20 organic compounds – including seven never previously encountered on Mars. Image via Curiosity’s MastCam. Credit: NASA / JPL

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.

Mapping the Amapari Marker on “Mount Sharp”. Credit: NASA / JPL

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.

Various views of the Amapari Marker. A-C captured via Curiosity’s MastCam, D-I captured via the MALI imager on the rover’s robotic arm using true colour, monochrome and false colour filters (to highlight deposits in the rocks). Credit: NASA / JPL

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.

April 19th, 2026: New Glenn NG-3 climbs away from its launch pad at Space Launch complex 36, Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Credit: John Raoux

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.

An infographic on the BE-4 and BE-3U engines used on New Glenn. credit: Blue Origin

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.

The core stage of the SLS rocket destined to launch the Artemis 3 mission is rolled-out from the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, sans it four RS-25 engines, at the start of its journey to Kennedy Space Centre. Credit: NASA

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.

An early version of the NASA / Axiom lunar space suit in 2024. This suit has now undergone numerous revisions – including that of colour. Credit: Axiom

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.