Tag: NASA

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

No Starliner mission to ISS this year

3:07 pm

Though in February 2026 NASA officials suggested there might be a Starliner cargo mission to ISS sometime in April 2026, the new schedule released today for ISS manned and cargo missions for the rest of this year shows no Starliner missions at all.

The press release hinted an extra Starliner mission could be added, but don’t but too much faith in this:

Launch opportunities for NASA’s uncrewed Boeing Starliner-1 cargo mission remain under review as teams continue working through technical issues discovered during the Crew Flight Test in 2024, as well as final actions from the Program Investigation Team report. The agency is assessing operational readiness and space station traffic to determine the earliest feasible launch window.

What I think is happening in NASA is that the agency under Isaacman wants a better assurance from Boeing that the problems with Starliner have been fixed, and Boeing is having trouble satisfying them. If so, it seems he is doing what I suggested in February, demand from Boeing the highest quality work or don’t buy anything from it at all. If so kudos to Isaacman.

It is also possible Isaacman doesn’t want to spend extra money paying Boeing for this extra cargo mission to prove out Starliner’s systems. Boeing’s contract for Starliner is fixed price, and the capsule’s multiple problems has now cost the company more than a billion dollars. It is unlikely it will have make a profit on it, which is why it wants NASA to pay for that cargo flight.

Either way, the first operational manned mission using Starliner continues to recede into the future, to the point where ISS might be gone before the capsule is finally okayed for manned flights.

14 comments

Next Artemis mission will be later than promised

9:20 am

Artemis logo

It appears that NASA has already recognized that the next Artemis mission, dubbed Artemis-3 and changed from a lunar landing to an Earth orbit test flight, will not happen on the schedule as first proposed by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman.

During the hearing on Monday, Congressman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman emeritus of the committee, asked Isaacman about his confidence that Artemis 3 would remain on schedule, given the amount of money allocated for the mission’s landers.

“I’ve received responses from both vendors [SpaceX and Blue Origin],” Isaacman said, “to meet our needs for a late 2027 rendezvous, docking and test [of] the interoperability of both landers in advance of a landing attempt in 2028.”

That’s a shift from Isaacman’s statements during his Feb. 27 Artemis strategy presentation, during which he said, “Artemis 3 will have its opportunity, if we can, by mid-2027, which sets us up for an early ’28 and a late ’28 opportunity [for Artemis 4 and 5].” [emphasis mine]

In other words, Artemis-3 has already shifted from mid-’27 to late-’27. Though Isaacman is pushing hard to speed up the launch cadence of the entire Artemis program, reality is once again proving stronger. We should fully expect Artemis-3 to shift into 2028, partly because the lunar landers — especially Blue Origin’s Blue Moon — might not be ready but mostly because SLS is simply too cumbersome a rocket to stack quickly. Isaacman wants to speed up its launch cadence to once a year. The best we should expect is 18 months to two years.

As for getting two manned lunar landings in 2028, Isaacman might want it but the odds are slim to none. If Artemis-3 flies in late ’27 it will be almost impossible to get SLS ready for a landing mission before the end of ’28.

In the end, these delays will illustrate the need to replace SLS with private commercial launchers.

26 comments

House Appropriations committee approves NASA budget, with some cuts proposed by Trump

8:50 am

In what is no surprise if one watched last week’s House hearing about the NASA budget, the House Appropriations committee yesterday approved a NASA budget for fiscal year 2027, giving the agency the same funding it had in 2026, just over $24 billion, rejecting Trump’s proposed major reduction in the budget of over $5 billion.

The vote was along party lines, with the Republicans approving and the Democrats opposing. As expected, while the overall budget was maintained, the Republicans went along with the sense of Trump’s cuts — and the desires of NASA administrator Jared Isaacman — by shifting money from science to exploration within the budget.

The subcommittee bill provides $8.926 billion for human exploration, an increase of about $400 million above the request, and the request itself favors exploration. … The subcommittee’s bill raises the FY2027 level for [NASA science] to $6 billion, but that’s still a $1.3 billion reduction from current spending as Ranking Member Grace Meng (D-New York) pointed out.

The bill also agreed with Trump’s proposal to eliminate NASA’s STEM education office, something Isaacman had repeatedly testified was redundant and a waste of money.

In other words, the committee is giving Isaacman more flexibility with the money it is giving him, as I predicted.

This is only the first step in the budget process. The budget still has to be approved by the full House, the Senate, and the President. Expect changes.

3 comments

Propaganda vs reporting in describing the battle over NASA’s budget

10:49 am

Jared Isaacman before the Senate
Jared Isaacman before the Senate

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman yesterday appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations committee, and as happened last week when Isaacman appeared before a House committee, the reality of what happened at the hearing differed greatly from what most new sources reported.

The main topic of both hearings were the proposed $5.6 billion cut in NASA’s budget, proposed by President Trump. Isaacman has made it clear he does not oppose this cut, stating repeatedly in public that he has plenty of money to do what he wants, that there is much waste and needless spending at NASA that needs reform, and by trimming that out he will find the cash he needs.

As I noted in reporting about that House hearing, I was struck by the lack of hard opposition to those cuts. The Republicans generally made little of the issue, though they seemed generally opposed to the cuts. And though the Democrats as expected blasted the cuts, they did so in a generally subdued manner, only showing passion in noting the elimination to NASA STEM education office. Isaacman’s willingness to push back hard against more spending took the wind out of their demands for more money, and so they muted their protests.

Unfortunately, if you relied on our propaganda press for an honest report of this House hearing, you would have been misinformed. As shown below, that propaganda press distorted this reality to back big government spending without question.

The Senate hearing yesterday followed the exact same pattern. The questioning was generally friendly, and Isaacman aggressively pushed back at the demands for more spending by Democrats. This made their push for more spending more difficult, because Isaacman knows what he is talking about, supports an ambitious space program at NASA, and if he says he doesn’t need the extra money, they look foolish throwing it at him.

Yet, the propaganda press once again tried to spin the hearing to promote more spending. Though this hearing got less coverage, the following two stories were typical:

Only one news source (outside of my reporting here), R&D World, reporting this hearing accurately: Senate largely hearing splits on party lines over proposed $5.6 billion NASA cut

Now, I am not naive. I fully expect Congress to restore most of the proposed cuts to NASA’s budget. At the same time, both hearings suggest that Congress will also afford Isaacman more leeway on how he uses the money. He will be able to cut or reshape major projects. He will be able to shut down some offices that he considers wasteful or redundant. And above all, he will be given the freedom to reform NASA in ways no Congress has allowed in decades.

10 comments

Isaacman before Congress: Speaking the truth to power

1:24 pm

Jared Isaacman at House hearing yesterday
Jared Isaacman at House hearing yesterday

There has been a lot of attention given by the propaganda press to the testimony yesterday by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman before the House Science Committee, with almost all of that coverage focused on two issues, Trump’s proposal to cut NASA’s budget significantly, and the public statement by Isaacman that two Lunar Gateway modules were delivered “corroded.”

On the corrosion issue, much of the press focused on whether Isaacman’s statement is true (contractors are denying it). I instead was struck by how little pushback there was overall from Congress about Isaacman’s proposal to cancel Gateway entirely. In two hours of testimony, only one congressman brought it up, and even he did not challenge Isaacman’s decision very strongly.

Put simply, it really didn’t matter whether these modules were corroded or not. Congress is not going to challenge Isaacman on this decision. Some politicians might use it in fund-raising letters or at press events as a hammer to win votes or donations, but when it comes time to approve NASA’s budget, they are willing to accept Isaacman’s overall judgment. Gateway will be gone.

As for the budget cuts, I was also struck by the lack of hard opposition from Congress, despite reporting from the propaganda press (like this story) suggesting the cuts were rejected outright. Though repeatedly Isaacman was questioned about those cuts — especially from Democrats — repeatedly he fought back hard, to good effect. He supports Trump’s cuts and does not want more money, because in reviewing NASA’s budget and recent actions, he has found there is ample cash available in Trump’s reduced budget by simply shutting down bad or duplicative projects and focusing his resources more effectively.

The only threatened program that seemed to generate any passion from Congress was Trump’s effort to eliminate NASA’s education STEM program. “We need this program to inspire kids!” they would say. Isaacman would bluntly respond “No we don’t,” noting that NASA issues millions in education grants outside that program (making that program duplicative and unnecessary), and that the best way NASA can inspire kids is to actually fly missions, not send money to some bureaucratic program. Isaacman wants to use that money to make building the lunar base more likely.

Over and over again Isaacman pulled the rug out from under this big-spending congress critters by simply pointing out the truth to them, with one exchange with Zoe Lofgren (D-California) quite typical. She clearly was opposed to Trump’s cuts and wanted to challenge any cancellations being put forth. To do so, however, she wanted Isaacman to provide more detailed information about those cuts. Issacman said sure, I’m glad to provide you everything you want, but then added this:
» Read more

33 comments

NASA’s IG: With only Axiom building NASA’s future spacesuits, the agency’s lunar program faces great scheduling risk

12:23 pm

Axiom's two spacesuits being tested underwater
Axiom’s two spacesuits being tested underwater in October 2025.
Click for original.

According to NASA’s inspector general’s report today [pdf] on the state of NASA’s effort to create new spacesuits for use by its astronauts on future space stations as well as in its Artemis lunar program, the planned schedules for the lunar landing and those stations are threatened because the agency presently has only one contractor, Axiom, building new suits, and has not established any spacesuit standardization rules should it want to issue contracts to others. From the report’s conclusion:

While NASA is taking steps to mitigate schedule risk, it must also contend with the unique risks inherent to a single-provider environment until future competition is introduced. … If Axiom cannot satisfy its contractual requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner, then NASA could be forced to continue using the problematic EMUs throughout the life of the ISS and significantly adjust its lunar plans. [EMUs are the complex suits presently used on ISS, and would not work well for any lunar landing mission.]

While xEVAS [the new suit concept] is flexible enough to allow for additional providers, doing so may not help the Agency meet its more immediate Artemis goals. Critically, NASA must address existing design and safety risks resulting from the lack of standard requirements for spacesuits to be compatible with various lunar spacecraft and assets.

As shown by the photo above, the development of Axiom’s spacesuit has been proceeding, and seems likely to be available for next year’s Artemis-3 Earth orbit test mission. At the same time, it is still behind schedule, a fact that has been mitigated because NASA’s entire Artemis program is equally behind schedule.

The report lists three commercial companies that might be able to provide alternative suits, and thus some redundancy, as shown by the image below.
» Read more

9 comments

Final ground testing begins of Katalyst’s Swift rescue spacecraft

5:46 am

Katalyst's proposed Swift rescue mission
Katalyst’s proposed Swift rescue mission.
Click for original image.

Only seven months after NASA awarded the satellite repair startup Katalyst the contract to save the Gehrels-Swift space telescope, the company has delivered the completed LINK spacecraft to the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland for final ground testing.

Katalyst will move forward with LINK’s vibration and thermal tests using NASA Goddard’s in-house facilities in the coming weeks before installation into Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus rocket at the agency’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.

Gehrels-Swift has been one of NASA’s most productive space telescopes. Unfortunately its orbit is decaying and if nothing is done to raise that orbit it will burn up in the atmosphere in 2029 or so. To extend this timeline engineers have stopped almost all science work in February.

Katalyst hopes to launch LINK as soon as later this year. It was able to get it built so quickly because it was already under construction as the company’s first demo of its repair technology. When NASA put out a bid for boosting Swift, the company shifted gears and reconfigured LINK for this mission.

If successfully, the achievement will be a major coup for this startup.

1 comment

The space station startups: NASA’s new space station plan is mistaken

9:01 am

The American space stations under development

At a conference event this week officials from three of the five American space station startups expressed strong disagreement with NASA’s new space station plan.

The new plan would have NASA build and launch its own new core module, dock it with ISS, and have the new stations attach their first modules to it prior to flying freely. NASA proposed this plan because it does not believe there is enough market to sustain the stations independently and NASA doesn’t have the budget to fully fund them.

The officials repeatedly disagreed about the market issue.

“We believe not only we can be ready by 2030” when the International Space Station is slated to be retired, “but we also believe that we can be profitable on the current market, not waiting for the future market we all will develop and will be successful at,” said Max Haot, CEO of Vast [building the Haven-1 and Haven-2 stations].

…Haot and executives from Axiom Space and Starlab Space said their responses to NASA’s request for information — which were due April 8 — show otherwise. “We put in 390 pages of independent analysis, research studies, datas, contracts, those types of things,” said Marshall Smith, CEO of Starlab Space, which is targeting 2029 for its station to be on orbit. “We’re being very clear and what we can do and how that works.”

One prominent revenue stream the panelists pointed to is other space agencies and nations eager to send their astronauts and payloads to space. “We’ve flown 12 people to space that paid us money to do that,” said Jonathan Cirtain, CEO of Axiom Space, referring to the four private astronaut missions it’s conducted to ISS. “We’ve flown 166 payloads today. All of those are paying payloads that generate revenue for the company.” The Texas company plans to begin operating in 2028 when its first two station modules are slated to be in orbit, then gradually grow the station to five modules.

The officials also said the core module idea would actually slow things down. NASA would have to first build and launch it, and would be starting from scratch to do so. It takes years to build such a thing, and it will certainly not be ready by 2030, when ISS is presently supposed to be retired. Moreover, forcing them to dock to this module would force them all to completely change their own plans, something they all find counter-productive.

In announcing NASA’s core module plan, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman also stated that he was open to industry feedback. I suspect that his core module proposal is going to die, and be replaced with the more direct transition from ISS to these private stations, the approach these companies favor.

I should add that the three startups that spoke up at this conference are also the three that are in the lead to build their stations, according to my rankings below. As far as I can tell, they are all tied for first place, with their station development very robust and well financed.
» Read more

26 comments

Voyager wins slot to fly tourist mission to ISS in 2028

4:24 pm

Starlab design as of December 2025
Starlab design as of December 2025

NASA today announced that it has awarded Voyager Technologies a slot to fly a tourist mission to ISS in 2028.

The mission, named VOYG-1, is expected to spend as many as 14 days aboard the space station. A specific launch date will depend on overall spacecraft traffic at the orbital outpost and other planning considerations.

Voyager will submit four proposed crew members to NASA and its international partners for review. Once approved and confirmed, they will train with NASA, international partners, and the launch provider for their flight.

Voyager is the lead company in the consortium that is building the Starlab station, a single very large module to be launched on SpaceX’s Starship.

At this moment three of the five commercial stations that are developing private space stations — Axiom, Vast, and Voyager — now have deals to fly such missions to ISS. The two remaining likely didn’t pass muster with NASA, for different reasons. Max Space is a late comer to this competition, only declaring that it is building its own station this year. Orbital Reef, led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space, is apparently a dead project, with neither company doing anything to sell its project for the past year or so.

In my rankings below of the five American commercial space stations presently in development, the first three are essentially tied at this point.
» Read more

2 comments

A very interesting and revealing interview of NASA administrator Jared Issacman

11:02 am

Jared Isaacman
NASA administrator Jared Isaacman

Link here. I found this interview with NASA administrator Jared Issacman to be very informative and worth reading, especially in regards to his comments on the proposed cuts to NASA’s budget.

First, he admits right off the bat that the heat shield was his biggest concern during the Artemis-2 mission. He also took a swipe at past NASA management over this issue. After noting that the initial inspection of the Artemis-2 shield after recovery showed it experienced little serious damage, he added this: “All that aside, if you’re going to wait three and a half years between missions, just replace the heat shield.” In other words, after Artemis-1 NASA management dithered when it saw the damaged heat shield. It should have immediately moved to replace it.

As for the proposed Trump budget cuts and the opposition to those cuts by many in Congress, Issacman said this:

There’s a lot of passionate people out here [referring I think to the space industry and its advocates]. They can do incredible things, from a scientific perspective. I don’t know how many of them have ever pulled together a financial model, and driven execution on some of these things to say what should or shouldn’t be the right budget.

Now, all that said, of course, we will maximize every dollar that Congress affords to the agency. But it is not healthy, for the agency, to get in this mindset that we have to spend our way out of every problem. And I don’t think it’s good for the country to think we have to print our way out of every problem. [emphasis mine]

This is not the first time Isaacman has indicated he thinks NASA can survive these cuts, and in fact can do as well if not better by using what it gets more wisely. It is however the first time he has put NASA’s budget in the context of the entire federal budget, which is badly out of control. Isaacman does not want more money from Congress because he thinks it is bad for the nation to spend itself into debt. He thinks he has enough to do the job.

The entire interview is worth reading. It indicates a very practical and honest mindset. Everyone might not agree with every proposal Isaacman has put forth, but he is clearly approaching things from a very good place.

31 comments

Orion’s risky return-to-Earth happens tonight at 8:07 pm (Eastern)

9:47 am

The Earth as seen by the Artemis-2 astronauts, from behind the Moon
The Earth and Moon during the lunar fly-by on April 6, 2026.
Click for original image.

After spending ten days in space, including a swing around the back of the Moon, the four-person Artemis-2 crew is now preparing for its return-to-Earth this evening, splashing down off the Pacific coast near San Diego.

At 10:53 p.m. EDT [last night], the Orion spacecraft ignited its thrusters for 9 seconds, producing an acceleration in velocity of 5.3 feet-per-second and pushing the Artemis II crew toward Earth. The crew is now more than halfway home.

About two hours before the burn, there was an unexpected return link loss of signal during a data rate change affecting the transmission of communications and telemetry from the spacecraft to the ground. Two-way communications were reestablished, and flight controllers resumed preparing for the upcoming burn with the crew shortly after.

…The third return trajectory correction burn is scheduled for April 10 at about 1:53 p.m. ahead of re-entry procedures.

This is I think the second time Orion has had a short loss of communications with ground control. In addition, the crew had to cancel a planned manual piloting demonstration of Orion while it flew past the Moon because of a leak in an internal helium tank, used to maintain pressure in the oxygen tank as the propellant is used. The leak was inside the European-built service module, which will be jettisoned before re-entry and burn up in the atmosphere.

Mission managers say this leak has not impacted any engine burns, but it will require attention before the next flight.

The return to Earth however carries the biggest risk of the entire mission. Orion’s heat shield is questionable. During its first use in the 2022 unmanned Artemis-1 flight around the Moon, it did not behave as expected, with large chunks breaking off instead of thin layers ablating away. Though mission engineers have adjusted the flight path through the atmosphere to mitigate stress, there is great uncertainty about that solution.

I have embedded NASA’s live stream of the return-to-Earth below. It begins at 6:30 pm (Eastern), though the first return event, jettison the service module, doesn’t occur until 7:33 pm (Eastern).
» Read more

21 comments
1 2 3 4 … 116