Tag: NASA

NASA awards Relativity the launch and management contract for new Mars orbiter

4:31 pm

NASA today awarded the rocket startup Relativity the contract to provide the service module, rocket, and operations for the launch of its proposed four instrument Aeolus Mars orbiter, focused on studying the Martian atmosphere.

NASA will provide the Aeolus atmospheric‑science instrument payload suite, while Relativity Space supplies the spacecraft, rocket, and cruise operations necessary to deliver the instruments to Mars.

…Aeolus, scheduled to launch in 2028, is a NASA‑developed suite of four complementary instruments designed to provide the first integrated, daily, global view of Martian winds, temperatures, dust, and clouds. By improving models for dust, winds, temperature, and seasonal atmospheric behavior, Aeolus will generate the detailed environmental knowledge required to reduce risk for future crewed and uncrewed landings. These measurements will directly inform entry, descent, and landing systems and support safer, more predictable mission planning for astronauts.

…NASA will support operations of science instruments for at least one Martian year, while Relativity Space maintains the spacecraft.

The announcement made no mention of contract price. Relativity meanwhile has only launched once, a failure of its small Terran-1 rocket in 2023, after which the company abandoned that 3D-printed design to focus on its larger Terran-R rocket, which it hopes to launch for the first time before the end of this year.

1 comment

Cargo Dragon splashes down in Pacific after spending a month at ISS

9:04 am

ISS today, after undocking of cargo Dragon
ISS today, after undocking of cargo Dragon.
Click for original.

SpaceX today successfully recovered a cargo Dragon from ISS, the capsule undocking and splashing down in the Pacific, bringing back a variety of experimental samples and hardware.

Research returning includes bioprinted organ and cartilage tissue, data on improving cryogenic fuel storage for future space missions, and DNA‑inspired materials to develop new cancer treatments. The returning hardware includes an ocular imaging device used to monitor crew members’ eye health, an absorbent bed that filters trace contaminants from cabin air, and a separator pump from the waste and hygiene compartment.

The Dragon had spent a month at ISS, just long enough for astronauts to unload its cargo from Earth and place this ISS material aboard.

The graphic to the right, cropped, reduced, and annotated to post here, shows the present spacecraft docked to ISS. It also shows the location of Russia’s leaking Zvezda module, with a Progress docked to its aft port. Note that a Progress and the permanent modulc are also docked to its bow docking hub. Zvezda is an essential part of the Russian half of ISS. Replacing it is impossible.

0 comments

Are the Russians no longer going to dock to its leaking Zvezda module on ISS?

10:15 am

Zvezda module of ISS
The Zvezda module, with aft PrK section indicated
where the cracks have been found.

In a report today at Ars Technica, Eric Berger cites two anonymous NASA officials as saying that the Russians have decided to decommission the aft PrK section of its Zvezda module where it has found numerous cracks and air leaks in the hull, apparently caused by the stress of the many dockings to Zvezda since it was launched almost thirty years ago.

Berger’s report was aimed at providing more information about the kerfuffle between NASA and Roscosmos on June 5, 2026,, when NASA had the astronauts on its half of the station shelter inside their Dragon capsule because Roscosmos was going to have its Russian astronauts cut off a structural bracket in Zvezda as part of the first phase of a new leak patch effort. NASA objected strongly to this action, fearing justifiably that the work could cause a catastrophic failure in Zvezda.

The Russians eventually backed off, merely doing measurements of the module’s new crack, which appearantly appeared after a Progress docking in April

Berger doesn’t really add any significant new details to this June 5 story, but he ends his report with this tidbit:

In the days since, there has been some additional back-and-forth, but Russia has now told NASA it will decommission the PrK module. Effectively, this means cosmonauts will no longer enter the PrK module or attempt to pressurize it. Progress vehicles will still be able to use the docking port to transfer fluids or perform other functions, but Russia will need to use other ports to move supplies on board the space station. [emphasis mine]

This quote however doesn’t tell us anything, and actually raises more questions. The Russians have already been keeping the hatch to Zvezda closed as much as possible, opening it only to unload Progress cargo. And if Progress freighters are still going to dock to Zvezda to “transfer fluids or perform other functions”, the module isn’t decommissioned. Nor is the risk reduced. One of the reasons Zvezda has been stressed over the years is that this port is along the station’s main axis, which makes it ideal for engine burns to raise the station’s orbit. Progresses have been doing this repeatedly from Zvezda for three decades. If they intend to dock with Zvezda to “transfer” fluids”, that also suggests they also plan to continue to use that port for those burns.

It also makes no sense to say other ports will be used to “move supplies” from freighters. Russia isn’t going to dock to Zvezda to transfer fluids, do engine burns, and then move Progress to a different port to transfer cargo.

Thus, we really at this moment do not know what the Russians intend. Nor do we know if they plan to continue to dock with Zvezda. And it appears that each time they do, the chances of a catastrophic failure of Zvezda increases.

21 comments

SpaceX’s IPO sets the stage for the colonization of the solar system — by private enterprise

1:01 pm

Elon Musk during the IPO
Elon Musk at the IPO opening.

While most news reports have focused trivially on Elon Musk’s status as the first trillionaire resulting from SpaceX’s successful initial public offering (IPO) last week, the real story of that IPO has to do with SpaceX itself and how that company’s extremely bright future is going to change human history.

Let me run some numbers.

The day’s earnings

First, the IPO was designed to raise capital for SpaceX by selling about 555 million shares of stock, with an opening price of $135. Once IPO opened however that price immediately jumped to $150, rising as high as $176 during the day, and by closing time settled at $160.95.

If we pick a conservative average sale price of $155 per share, this means SpaceX raised more than $86 billion in investment capital on this one day. The actual number will be less, because the brokerage houses that ran the IPO get a cut, but I would guess SpaceX will walk away with at least $75 billion once all accounts are settled.

To give this some context, NASA’s annual budget for the past two decades has been around $24 billion. NASA however cannot use that cash very efficiently, because it is required by Congress to have a huge unneeded labor force in many centers scattered around the country, to create jobs in specific congressional districts and states.

SpaceX doesn’t have that problem. For the company, this is real money. It can focus its use very precisely and efficiently for what needs to be done, and thus get a lot more bang out of the buck.

Annual earnings

SpaceX however is not limited to just the capital raised in the IPO.
» Read more

67 comments

NASA announces crew and flight plan for Artemis-3 Earth orbit mission next year

12:22 pm

Artemis logo

NASA today unveiled both the four-person crew that will fly its Artemis-3 Earth orbit mission next year as well as the mission’s basic plan, assuming both SpaceX and Blue Origin can get their respective lunar landers ready in time.

Crew assignments are as follows:

  • NASA astronaut Randy Bresnik, commander
  • ESA (European Space Agency) astronaut Luca Parmitano, pilot
  • NASA astronaut Frank Rubio, mission specialist
  • NASA astronaut Andre Douglas, mission specialist

… NASA astronaut Bob Hines was named as a backup crew member.

Except for Douglas, all are veterans.

The mission details were also announced:

Artemis III includes launching the world’s most powerful rockets in short order. Blue Origin’s lander pathfinder, which is able to stay in orbit for multiple weeks, will launch first and await the crew. NASA will send the astronauts aboard Orion by SLS to orbit Earth, before rendezvousing in space with the company’s lander test article and spending about two days docked together for tests and technology demonstrations, including entering the lander.

After completing docked operations with Blue Origin, Orion will detach and await Starship. SpaceX’s Starship pathfinder will launch and meet up with Orion to spend about a day connected for checkouts and testing. After that, Orion and its crew will undock and return home, splashing safely down in the Pacific Ocean where a team from the U.S. Navy and NASA will recover the astronauts.

In total, the crew is expected to remain in space for about two weeks, with exact mission length to be determined in real-time based on launch, rendezvous, and docked operations.

All of this assumes that New Glenn has been fixed and is operational by late 2027 and can launch the Blue Moon Mark-2 manned lunar lander. It also assumes the lunar lander version of Starship is ready and operational and man-rated. It also assumes NASA can get SLS stacked and ready for launch much faster than previously expected.

All are big assumptions.

Other issues: Orion will be testing its docking system and its newly redesigned heat shield for the first time, with humans on board. As the return will be from low Earth orbit, the stress on the heat shield will be relatively light, reducing the risk considerably. Similarly, if the docking system fails they simply won’t dock, and can return to Earth instead. Both should work, however, as neither is cutting edge technology.

29 comments

NASA’s X-59 completes first no-boom supersonic flight, more than a year after a private company did it

10:28 am

NASA yesterday made a big deal about the first successful supersonic test flight of its X-59 test plane, built by Lockheed Martin for $247.5 million to demonstrate quiet no-boom supersonic flight.

And as usual, our uneducated propaganda press played along, touting the wonders of this new NASA achievement. A few examples:

Poppycock. Not one of these news articles made mention of the fact that the private commercial company Boom Supersonic accomplished the same feat eighteen months earlier, its XB-1 supersonic airplane breaking the sound barrier with no boom three separate times. And it did so using private funds for significantly less and getting the job done faster and in a manner that it can quickly convert into its planned commercial supersonic planes.

The X-59 is a typical NASA test project, designed to test a technology in a manner that is generally too specific and expensive for commercial use. Without doubt the engineering and the data from these flights will be helpful to companies like Boom, but to use it will require major changes and revisions to bring the cost down. It is for this reason Boom did its own engineering and test.

That I appear to be the only news outlet aware of this important background information — that puts a significantly different light on this government project — illustrates the bankruptcy of our modern media. They don’t know anything, and can only rewrite press releases.

20 comments

NASA clarifies air leak situation yesterday on ISS

8:27 am

Figure 3 from September Inspector General report
Figure 3 from September 2024 Inspector General report, showing Zvezda’s location on ISS, as well as the station’s leak rate at that time.

According to a NASA update posted late yesterday, the agency had cause to order its astronauts to shelter in place within their Dragon capsule due to planned repair work proposed by the Russians.

The week of June 1, during Progress 95 spacecraft cargo operations, Roscosmos noted an increase of the previous leak rate to two pounds per day and identified new suspected leak areas in the PrK. Following this observation, Roscosmos made the decision to begin work toward a more extensive inspection and structural repair effort Friday morning. This revised approach involved cutting a bracket to better access an area identified as a possible leak source for further inspection, using a method that could have resulted in elevated risk to the structure in the area. In response, NASA directed the four SpaceX Crew-12 members and NASA astronaut Chris Williams, who flew to station aboard the Soyuz MS-28 spacecraft, to take a heightened safety posture, known as a safe haven, inside the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft during the procedure.

Later Friday morning, Roscosmos paused and did not perform the structural repair work in favor of conducting additional measurements and data assessments, which included inspection of suspected areas of interest and review of areas where sealant was previously applied. NASA strongly supported that decision, and as a result, following that decision, Crew-12 and Williams ended their safe haven activities and returned to normal operations aboard the orbiting laboratory.

In other words, the leak rate had increased to match the high rates seen from 2019 to 2025, and the Russians were planning work that threatened the structure of the module. It appears NASA objected, and eventually the Russians acceded to those objections.

What happens next however remains unclear. If the leak rate has suddenly jumped from one pound per day to two pounds a day, that suggests the situation is worsening, and doing so at an alarming rate. As this new leak occurred shortly after a Progress freighter docked at Zvezda, it suggested the docking instigated it. It also suggests any further dockings there are likely to worsen the situation even more.

12 comments

NASA admits mismanagement and human errors caused 2025 Goldstone antenna damage

4:53 pm

NASA today released its completed investigation into the November 2025 incident that severely damaged its Goldstone antenna in California when workers allowed the antenna to “over rotate” beyond its acceptable limits, putting it out of commission.

In its final report, the board found the mishap primarily stemmed from software weaknesses, human error, and an undetected failure in the antenna’s hydraulic limit system. Investigators determined an electrical issue at the antenna the previous day caused the control system to misreport the antenna’s rotation state, an issue that went unnoticed and triggered multiple limit-stops during the Juno track on Sept. 16. While working to identify the limit-stop problem, operators performed several troubleshooting steps that inadvertently bypassed software and hardware safeguards, which ultimately led to the over-rotation incident. After flooding in the antenna base was observed, operators attempted to stow the antenna as a safety precaution, however, because the system had already passed the rotation limits, this action drove the antenna further into over‑rotation, causing additional damage.

Additionally, the investigation found the antenna’s hydraulic limit system, its final mechanical safeguard, was inoperable on Sept. 16 after being damaged in an undocumented prior incident. The system also had not been adequately tested for an undetermined period of time.

Investigators also concluded workplace culture pressured operators to work as expeditiously as possible, often stretching beyond their usual roles, expertise, and training, to keep the antenna operating. The board states the cultural conditions observed at Goldstone were not present at the network’s other sites, where roles and responsibilities are followed more consistently. Other contributing factors outlined in the report include inadequate procedures, reliance on undocumented practices and tacit knowledge, and gaps in the antenna’s control logic. [emphasis mine]

You can read that report here [pdf], but be warned that large sections are redacted, apparently in an effort to protect the identities of those responsible.

Nonetheless, it is very clear from the highlighted text above that the management and work situation at Goldstone was a mess, and that the mishap was caused not by faulty engineering but by faulty work practices and bad management. Unfortunately, nowhere in the report is it said that there will be any management changes. This fact might have been redacted, but I suspect not. It is typical of government agencies like NASA after incidents like this to whitewash the investigation, concluding simply that “we should have done better and we now we will!”

The repairs will cost NASA about $4.6 million, and will likely not be completed until 2028.

14 comments

Venturi Space expands investment in new French factory for building Astrolab’s rover

8:59 am

Venturi Space, the European half of the partnership with the rover startup Astrolab, is increasing its investment in a new French factory from 100 million to 250 million euros.

On 1 June, Venturi Space announced that it had increased its expected investment in the new facility to €250 million. The announcement indicated that it would no longer begin with the initial smaller facility and would instead move directly to the full 16,000-square-metre planned “technology centre.” This likely accounts for the additional €150 million in funding.

According to the company’s 1 June press release, the facility will be used for the “design and manufacture of critical technologies for lunar and Martian mobility, as well as [for] the assembly of the rovers developed by the company.” …Venturi Space is providing wheels, batteries, and battery management systems to US-based Venturi Astrolab for use aboard its rovers. During a 26 May event, NASA announced that Venturi Astrolab was one of two companies selected to build rovers for the agency’s Artemis programme.

The partnership is an unusual one. Venturi Space and Astrolab are separate companies, working together to build Astrolab’s rovers for NASA. Venturi however is also developing its own rover for the European Space Agency.

3 comments

NASA abandons core module idea for its commercial space station program

8:56 am

The American space stations under development

Bowing to the unanimous opposition by the three most advanced commercial space station startups, NASA official Bethany Stevens yesterday announced that it is abandoning its proposed core module space station concept and returning its commercial space station program to its original plan, whereby the private stations all compete independently.

Industry has provided extensive feedback making the case for a sustainable commercial market in which NASA is one customer among many, along with assurances regarding available transportation capabilities. The industry position will now shape the path forward as NASA proceeds with the original commercial strategy.

Over the coming weeks, NASA will work with stakeholders and industry to refine flexible requirements and acquisition plans, with a draft RFP expected later this month.

The original plan was for the private sector to compete for one or two major construction contracts from NASA. The core module approach, put forth under NASA administrator Jared Isaacman’s leadership in March, instead made them all part of a government space station, like ISS, at least initially. Under that plan the new commercial space stations would attach their first modules to a government-built core module that NASA would first build and own. Isaacman proposed this because he and NASA believed it didn’t have the budget to finance more than one commercial station, and that the agency didn’t think there was sufficient market to make up the difference.

Officials from Vast, Starlab, Axiom and elsewhere all expressed opposition to the core module plan, insisting there was sufficient market to finance their stations, even without NASA. They also opposed the core module plan because it would require major changes in their present designs, and they had great doubt NASA could build that core module quickly enough for their financial purposes.

Isaacman and NASA apparently listened to these objections, and were convinced their idea was a mistake and the industry was right. It is now reviewing its budget and will decide whether it can do what it originally hoped, award two stations a major contract.

Either way, the recent news from all these three stations suggests they are increasingly in a strong position, whether or not they win that NASA contract.

6 comments

A call to my readers: Find the location of NASA’s lunar base!

8:46 am

Moon base map from NASA's May 26, 2026 presentation

Moon's south pole, with landers indicated
Click for interactive LRO map.

During yesterday’s NASA press conference outlining the first unmanned missions to the agency’s planned moon base near the Moon’s south pole, Carlos García-Galán, Moon Base program executive, included the graphic above of that base in his presentation.

Though García-Galán said this lunar base map is in the south pole region, the map provided no crater names nor any longitude or latitude information. Nor did it provide a scale to determine the size of these craters. Because of this lack of information, I was unable to identify the map’s precise location near the Moon’s south pole, even after searching extensively at the QuickMap site for Lunar Reconnaissance Rover (LRO) images, now managed by Intuitive Machines images and found here. The map to the right was created from that QuickMap site, annotated by me later with the planned landing locations for Chang’e-7 and Griffin, plus the sites where Nova-C and Vikram landed previously.

I am now asking you, my readers, to do some detective work. See if you can pinpoint the location of the map above with the LRO south pole imagery at the link. The crater patterns should provide the first clue. Remember also that the orientation of the map might require significant rotation to match the LRO data. Remember too that the scale of the map above could require you to zoom in a great deal.

If you think you have a match, post it in the comments below.

29 comments

NASA outlines new program of unmanned missions to Moon

2:15 pm

NASA's Moon base plans as of May 2026
NASA’s Moon base plans as of May 2026.

NASA officials today outlined its new reshaped program of unmanned missions to Moon, designed it says to lay the first groundwork for the manned lunar base to follow.

You can watch the press conference here. The map to the right comes from one viewgraph during that conference, and apparently shows the planned lunar base area, which officials said could cover about 100 square miles. Though officials said this is in the south pole region, I have not been able to identify the precise location, using the global map produced by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The large crater northeast of the base does not appear to be Shackleton Crater.

The schedule includes four already planned missions, two new missions awarded to Blue Origin in a $188 million contract to deliver two new rovers, and a new hopper mission mission to be delivered by Firefly’s Blue Ghost lander. The schedule is as follows:
» Read more

12 comments

NASA approves lunar habitation module design from Italy’s space agency

10:06 am

While the American company Redwire appears in the lead to win a European contract to build its lunar lander’s robot arm, it appears the Italian Space Agency (ASI) has gotten NASA’s preliminary approval to begin work on its Multi-purpose Habitation module (MPH) for the lunar base.

The Italian Space Agency [ASI] announced on 22 May that its Multi-Purpose Habitation (MPH) module had been cleared by a NASA review board to progress toward a Preliminary Design Review in 2027. The first MPH module is expected to launch in 2033.

…With the successful completion of the SDR [System Definition Review] and SRR [System Requirements Review], ASI and Thales Alenia Space can now prepare for the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), which will assess whether the module’s preliminary design is mature enough to meet NASA’s requirements before the programme advances into detailed design and hardware development.

It should be noted that the MPH appears to be a revision of the habitable module that ESA and Thales Alenia were building for the now dead Lunar Gateway station. This new deal is likely NASA’s effort to give ESA comparable work to make up for the loss of its Gateway contribution.

At the same time, ASI will face heavy competition from American companies for this work, as it isn’t the only one proposing habitable modules for the American lunar base. In March 2026 Voyager Technologies and Max Space announced a partnership to build their own inflatable habitable lunar modules. Just as ESA can only make rare exceptions when it gives work to American companies, NASA is obliged to do the same with its European contracts.

0 comments

NASA practically eliminates any Starliner flights before ISS retires

10:11 am

Starliner docked to ISS
Starliner docked to ISS in 2024.

In a procurement announcement on May 18, 2026, NASA added another three to six crewed flights to ISS to its contract with SpaceX, covering all missions possible through 2030, which in turn practically eliminates the possibility it will buy any manned flights on Boeing’s Starliner capsule.

In a May 18 procurement filing, NASA announced its intent to add six post-certification missions, or PCMs, to SpaceX’s commercial crew contract on a sole-source basis. The agency would order up to three of those missions at the time it added them, formally starting preparations for them.

…Adding six missions to the contract would cover three years of ISS operations, at a rate of one mission every six months. With the currently contracted missions, running through Crew-14, flying through the fall of 2027, the extension would provide coverage through late 2030, when the ISS is slated for retirement. NASA has previously stated the last crewed mission would likely spend a year at the station.

Though it is not stated yet exactly how much SpaceX will earn with these additional missions, based on previous contracts the revenue will likely range from $1 to $2 billion. Overall, SpaceX has probably received somewhere between $4 to $6 billion additional earnings that was supposed to go to Boeing.

Instead, Boeing is now out of the picture entirely, though NASA is being very coy about saying so. It will earn nothing from Starliner, at least in connection with hauling crews or cargo to ISS. And because its contract with NASA was fixed price and the company could not meet its final milestones to get the bulk of its payments, it will have cost the company about $2 billion beyond what NASA had paid it.

It remains unknown whether Boeing wishes to continue the project. NASA officials had suggested earlier this year that it would buy an unmanned cargo mission to ISS to give the company a chance to prove the capsule and get it certified for manned missions. They have since backed off from that plan, scheduling no Boeing missions through the rest of this year.

Though things could still change, it appears Starliner is dead. In history books this Boeing project I think will become the poster boy for the failures of the older big space companies that used to dominate America’s aerospace industry. By the 21st century they didn’t know how to budget, had poor quality control resulting in unreliable products, and designed things that were badly conceived. The result was a bankrupt space industry that was only saved when new companies appeared willing to fill a need these older companies could not.

25 comments

Isaacman rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic of NASA

12:50 pm

NASA logo

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman today announced major bureaucratic changes at NASA designed to make the agency’s work more “mission centric”, to use his words.

To improve our operational efficiency, we must evolve the organization to be more ‘mission centric’, with specialized centers properly resourced to support current and future requirements. To do this, we will separate lines of authority between preparing and supporting the workforce and executing the mission.

Center Directors will continue reporting to the Associate Administrator, focused on empowering the workforce and maintaining the facilities and critical capabilities at their Centers. Mission Directorates will now report to the Administrator with the primary focus on leveraging Center resources, industry, and international contributions to execute on the mission as urgently and efficiently as possible. We will also take this opportunity, where appropriate, to consolidate departments, flatten org structure and enhance HQ by rotating operational expertise into critical functions.

Isaacman’s memo is long, and involves a lot of reshaping, including an attempt to give specific research focus to each of NASA’s existing centers, while consolidating several departments at NASA headquarters to make operations more efficient. A good summary can also be found here.

Overall, Isaacman’s changes seem logical and smart. At the same time, I’ve seen new NASA administrators do the same time after time, without actually accomplishing any real change. In a sense this is no different than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks. You aren’t really fixing the problem, you are making believe you are doing so.

To really fix NASA will require major cuts, with whole centers and bureaucracies eliminated. If NASA is going to depend on the private sector to get things done — which is very clearly doing at this point — it doesn’t need its present large labor force. All it needs is a trim small bureaucracy in Washington to manage the contracts it hands out as it lets the commercial industry develop and build the rockets, spacecraft, and interplanetary bases the U.S. requires.

Isaacman is not willing or able to do this, however. He might want to (though nothing he has said suggests he does) but even if he did Congress will not let him. It wants NASA funded to keep those pork-laden unproductive jobs alive in their numerous congressional districts.

And so, the deck chairs get rearranged.

5 comments

Zvezda module on ISS is leaking once again

8:51 am

According to a report today at Ars Technica, the Zvezda module on ISS is once again leaking station air, despite recent repairs to the stress fractures in its hull that had appeared in recent months to halt the air loss.

After a couple of sources reported this to Ars, NASA confirmed the issue on Thursday. On May 1, after Russian cosmonauts unloaded cargo from the Progress 95 cargo spacecraft, Roscosmos noted a “slow pressure drop” in the PrK module.

“Teams performed data analysis, which indicated a loss of about one pound per day,” NASA spokesperson Josh Finch told Ars. “Roscosmos allowed the pressure in the transfer tunnel to gradually decrease while monitoring the rate. The area now is being maintained at a lower pressure, with small repressurizations as needed. There are no impacts to station operations, and NASA and Roscosmos are coordinating on next steps.”

A loss of one pound of air per day is comparable to the leak rate back in 2019, as shown in the lower right corner of the graphic below. It is also one third the loss rate seen for much of the following five years, which is I suppose good news.

Figure 3 from September Inspector General report
Figure 3 from September 2024 Inspector General report, showing Zvezda’s location on ISS, as well as the station’s leak rate at that time.

At the same time, it suggests once again that every docking to Zvezda puts stress on its hull, and apparently causes either new cracks or the reopening of old ones. In such a situation, a catastrophic failure of the module remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed. NASA closes the hatch between the Russian and American halves of the station whenever there is a docking, but that is only band-aid covering a much more serious problem.

Without question ISS’s life span is impacted by this issue. The sooner the U.S. can replace it with at least one or two of the private commercial stations under development, the better.

10 comments

Astrolab’s Flip lunar rover will carry 4 NASA payloads

8:37 am

Moon's south pole, with landers indicated

When NASA cancelled in 2024 its Viper rover, removing it as the main payload on Astrobotic’s Griffin lunar lander, the company quickly made a deal in 2025 with the rover startup Astrolab to put its s FLIP prototype lunar rover on board instead.

Astrolab yesterday announced that NASA has agreed to purchase payload space on FLIP, placing four different science instruments on the rover, each from a different NASA center.

The map to the right indicates the location where Griffin is supposed to land, about 100 miles from the Moon’s south pole. Nova-C, Intuitive Machines first attempt to soft land on the Moon, landed at the green dot, but failed when it fell over at landing. Its second lunar lander, Athena, also fell over when it landed in the same region that is now Griffin’s target landing zone.

Griffin’s launch itself has been delayed repeatedly. Astrobotic was originally issued its NASA contract for Griffin in 2020, with a launch planned for November 2023, carrying NASA’s Viper rover. In July 2022 however it was delayed one year to November 2024 because Astrobotic said it needed more time. This date was then delayed to 2025 when Viper was canceled, and then in October 2025 the launch was pushed back again to July 2026.

According to the press release at the link above, that July 2026 launch date is now invalid, with the new launch date set for before the end of 2026. I strongly suspect that date will slip again.

0 comments

SpaceX launches cargo Dragon to ISS

3:11 pm

SpaceX today launched an unmanned Dragon freighter to ISS, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.

The first stage completed its 6th flight, landing back at Cape Canaveral. The capsule is also making its sixth flight to ISS, and will dock with the station at 7 am (Eastern) on May 17, 2026.

57 SpaceX
27 China
8 Russia
6 Rocket Lab

For the third straight year SpaceX leads the entire world combined in total launches, 57 to 48.

0 comments

Malta signs Artemis Accords

8:33 am

On the same day (May 4th) Ireland officially signed the Artemis Accords (as announced on May 1st), Malta also signed the accords, becoming the 66th nation to join this American space alliance.

The Republic of Malta became the 65th signatory to the Artemis Accords on Monday during a ceremony in the town of Kalkara with NASA and U.S. Department of State officials present. … Malta’s Minister for Education, Youth, Sports, Research and Innovation Clifton Grima signed the Artemis Accords on behalf of the country. … U.S. Ambassador to Malta Somers W. Farkas and NASA Europe Representative Gregory Mann witnessed the signing together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Tourism Ian Borg.

As I predicted on April 30th, the success of the Artemis-2 mission has caused a lot of third world smaller nations to quickly jump on the bandwagon, with Latvia, Jordan, Morocco, Ireland, and now Malta all signing in just the past week.

The full list of nations in this American space alliance is as follows:

Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

Expect more nations to sign on in the coming weeks.

3 comments
1 2 3 … 116