December 16, 2025 Quick space links
Courtesy of BtB’s stringer Jay. This post is also an open thread. I welcome my readers to post any comments or additional links relating to any space issues, even if unrelated to the links below.
- Vast puts out a call for proposals for microgravity research on its Haven-1 station
This is a great opportunity for college students, as the approval process is going to be far simpler and faster than NASA’s for ISS.
- Chinese pseudo-company Astronstone touts the construction and testing of its own tower chopsticks
Only they are not yet on a tower, but held up with scaffolding near the ground.
- Blue Origin completes testing of the BE-7 engine to fly on its unmanned Blue Moon MK1 lunar lander
The engine has now been shipped to Florida for integration with lander for launch next year.
- South Korean rocket startup Innospace has moved its HANBIT-Nano rocket to the launchpad in Brazil for final checks
Launch is scheduled for December 16, 2025 at 10:45 pm (Mountain). Live stream here.
- On this day in 1965 Wally Schirra and Tom Stafford launched on Gemini-6 to rendezvous with Gemini-7, already in orbit
They completed world’s controlled first rendezvous of two spacecraft.
- On this day in 1984, the Soviet Union launched Vega 1, the first of two Vegas to fly by Venus (dropping off landers) and then continuing on to Halley’s Comet
As of today, the two Vega landers remain the last missions to touch the surface of Venus and return data.
- On this day in 2010 Mars Odyssey became the longest-operating spacecraft ever sent to Mars
It is still operating after 24 years, and now mostly acts as a communications satellite for other Mars missions.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Courtesy of BtB’s stringer Jay. This post is also an open thread. I welcome my readers to post any comments or additional links relating to any space issues, even if unrelated to the links below.
- Vast puts out a call for proposals for microgravity research on its Haven-1 station
This is a great opportunity for college students, as the approval process is going to be far simpler and faster than NASA’s for ISS.
- Chinese pseudo-company Astronstone touts the construction and testing of its own tower chopsticks
Only they are not yet on a tower, but held up with scaffolding near the ground.
- Blue Origin completes testing of the BE-7 engine to fly on its unmanned Blue Moon MK1 lunar lander
The engine has now been shipped to Florida for integration with lander for launch next year.
- South Korean rocket startup Innospace has moved its HANBIT-Nano rocket to the launchpad in Brazil for final checks
Launch is scheduled for December 16, 2025 at 10:45 pm (Mountain). Live stream here.
- On this day in 1965 Wally Schirra and Tom Stafford launched on Gemini-6 to rendezvous with Gemini-7, already in orbit
They completed world’s controlled first rendezvous of two spacecraft.
- On this day in 1984, the Soviet Union launched Vega 1, the first of two Vegas to fly by Venus (dropping off landers) and then continuing on to Halley’s Comet
As of today, the two Vega landers remain the last missions to touch the surface of Venus and return data.
- On this day in 2010 Mars Odyssey became the longest-operating spacecraft ever sent to Mars
It is still operating after 24 years, and now mostly acts as a communications satellite for other Mars missions.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
In addition to the generally good news about research opportunities on Haven-1 in the Vast presser, we also found out that Vast intends to have enough of its Haven-2 successor station on-orbit by 2030 to allow continuous human habitation there, taking the baton from ISS. Perhaps Starlab and Axiom will also be able to do likewise by that date or not much later.
Am I the only one who finds a degree of mirth in the fact that the Chinese are copying “chopstick” technology from the US? It’s true that said chopsticks are close to the ground just now, but SpaceX’s own sets started out that way too. But SpaceX had giant towers already built to mount them to. This PRC outfit seems lacking in that key respect. Kudos on at least a decent start at “collecting the entire set,” but I think it will likely be awhile before we see any launch activity from these folks – if ever.
More new space hardware from Korea and Blue. Best wishes to INNOSPACE and HANBIT-Nano in their efforts to ninja a number of other start-ups working toward initial launches in 2026 by becoming the last of the newcomer class of 2025.
Dick Eagleson: Vast continues to rank #1 in my mind as the space station company to watch. It has been making a concerted effort recently to local customers and users for its stations, much more than any of the other stations. And it will be flying its hardware ahead of anyone else.
No mirth on Chinese copying chopsticks–I am just angry that they don’t go for winged fly backs.
Each country should spend its money (public, private, whatever) building its own type of space lift. Angara was a clone of EELVs. I just hated that. The Baikal winged flyback got no love.
Space tech
https://phys.org/news/2025-12-cool-satellites-flexible-electronics-thin.html
Invisibility cloak–this time for real…uh-huh:
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-12-harry-potter-style-invisibility-cloak.html
Jeff Wright observed: “No mirth on Chinese copying chopsticks . . . ”
I think it’s hilarious. We took the name based on appearance and function (is that cultural appropriation?), they took the tech, but kept the name. I am easily amused.
Author William Gibson got one thing right: the use of space by, and prevalence of, companies operating out of random places on Earth. South Korea? Brazil? These places never used to come up in space-related conversation. I understand why this is true, and it’s great to see.
The aggressiveness of Vast’s entire approach is heartening: so much of it feels like SpaceX’s early days, when the whole mindset was to get to market with a minimum viable product, as quickly and cheaply as possible, in order to convince both potential customers and investors to get onboard.
But the most important customer and investor for all of these commercial station developers remains NASA. As Vast CEO Max Haot reaffirmed recently, a NASA CLD contract remains essential for all of them, Vast included, to close a business case for their stations. I do not think that will always be the case, but I think to get them off the ground right now it clearly is, alas. Jared Isaacman underlined the importance of resolving this as quickly as possible in his ATHENA document, and I hope he holds true to that (and gets congressional funding). Haot is urging that NASA contract at least two stations, and I think that is sensible. There’s some serious risk in all this, and you want to make sure that at least one is really successful.
In the meantime, though, I hope we can all watch as Haven-1 gets put through its paces in orbit next year.
By the way, this report from Marcia Smith at Space Policy Online last night is worth noting:
“The Senate plans to vote on Isaacman’s nomination to be NASA Admin tomorrow (Wed, 12/17) after they vote on National Def Auth Act (NDAA) around 11:30 am ET. 1st Isaacman vote will be to invoke cloture. If invoked (as expected) *up to* 2 hrs of debate, then vote on confirmation.”
So, we could have a NASA Administrator today, unless there is an unexpected hitch.
Robert Zimmerman,
Vast has a number of ex-SpaceX-ers on staff. That accounts for both the company’s aggressiveness, as Richard M says, and also for its vertical integration. Vast is the only one of the four US space station companies with in-house capability to make all of its major structures. Both Starlab and Axiom have contracted that stuff out. Blue Origin can make part of Orbital Reef on its own factory floors, but it is also relying – in theory, anyway – on Sierra Space for inflatable modules, though that whole project seems pretty moribund at present. Your rankings seem entirely correct.
Jeff Wright,
Winged flybacks, especially those intended to land horizontally, suffer an inherent mass penalty compared to flybacks employing grid fins and a vertical powered landing. That is most likely why the Russians never pursued the idea to the point of actual flyable hardware, just a mockup or two at Paris Airshows.
Each country does spend its money building its own kind of spacelift. But form follows function. SpaceX’s forms display the best function. So the PRC, quite reasonably, goes with what works best. The Russians would too, if they were able – which they’re not, owing to institutional rot and a disastrous war-of-choice.
Richard M,
NASA as a partial provider of development money and then as an on-going tenant takes LEO space stations on the same path as Commercial Cargo & Crew. One hopes the new stations are financially successful enough for their builders to fund additional copies or larger successors on their own. We shall see. A Starship-based “metro bus”-like service for crew and cargo to and from multiple stations in a common orbit – which I have described in comments here before – would materially improve the economics of post-ISS LEO space stations.
One place I do foresee large space stations built entirely by private capital is in lunar orbit. As he pursues his lunar industrialization plans, I think Elon will find he needs to provide 1-G R&R space for his long-term human workers. Rotating space stations nearby will, I think, prove more economical than hauling everyone back to Earth periodically.
Good news on the Isaacman vote. A bit of an early Chistmas present that.
Hello Dick,
That is possible — indeed, it really *could* reduce the cost of human access to orbit, which as Eager Space has pointed out, remains a big reason why it’s so difficult to build a business case for space stations. Dragon/Falcon has reduced the cost to orbit for humans and their cargo by quite a bit, but it is still very high.
But then that raises the danger that Starship could pose to these stations, as Eager Space *also* pointed out: That if Elon is ever persuaded to develop Starship into another variant as a “free-flyer” station, an all-in-one crew transport and station which simply flies, fully equipped for purpose, as a long duration station of its own and then returns with its human crew back to Earth, why….that could be very hard for commercial stations to compete with.
I have no sense that Elon is interested in doing this. But once Starship really is operational, I don’t think it can be ruled out that he might think about it, if he can be persuaded that there’s a way to develop and operate it at a profit.
The downsides are the big mass penalty and the need for landing gear that has to deploy through your heat shield. The upsides are lower g-loads on reentry and landing, and greater cross range.
The latter is what persuaded Sierra to pursue Dream Chaser. Now they have fumbled the ball with what looks like poor project management and inadequate resourcing, but it’s still possible that there is a *niche* case for space planes/lifting body spacecraft, either for emergency medical evacuation or payloads that require those low g-loads and greater cross range. Maybe the orbital market has to develop more for that niche case to come into focus, and maybe, too, you need a company that can do a more efficient job of developing and operating such a vehicle than Sierra has managed to date.
Otherwise, the options for crew launch and EDL are going to remain space capsules. Or Starship.
Jared Isaacman wins his cloture vote, 67-30.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00649.htm
That is not the actual confirmation vote. That will happen shortly.
But, this probably means he ends up somewhere in the 60’s for a final vote tally.
By the way, Payload has a new story up today, including comments from Max Haot, and he talks more about all this. Haot talks about how NASA’s shift to shorter term missions as a CLD requirement can actually be a good thing, and should be seen as merely a stepping stone — clearly, it is something that fits Vast’s plans for Haven-2 pretty well. “There’s confusion, and people saying [doing] the 30-day mission ASAP is a distraction. That can’t be further from reality,” he said. “Incremental stepping stones are part of everything, including the ISS [when it was built.]…It’s a better approach than nothing, until you’re ready.”
https://payloadspace.com/clds-2025-wrapped/?oly_enc_id=7021F3657790B2Q
P.S. The Payload story includes responses from leaders of Axiom, Vast, and Starlab. Interesting to note that Starlab says that it has sold 70% of the payload capacity on Its first mission, which is on track to launch in 2029.
Richard M,
The Starship-as- space station notion will probably be decided on strictly economic grounds. My guess is that SpaceX won’t be overly-enthused about the idea of tying up an entire Starship for an extended orbital jaunt. The “metro bus” option allows numerous much shorter missions over an equivalent interval and this is likely to prove more lucrative. The more commercial destination “bus stops” there are in LEO, in fact, the more the economics of the “metro bus” paradigm improve. Thus SpaceX would have an economic incentive to avoid cannibalizing the Commercial LEO niche with Starships acting as additional zero-G stations. SpaceX might well have some eventual interest in a large rotating non-zero-G station that is primarily or entirely a tourist destination, but, even here, a joint venture of some sort with an extant LEO station operator might prove more financially advantageous than going it alone.
I could, to be sure, be entirely mistaken about any or all of the preceding. However things play out, it will be fun to watch.
The “space ambulance” idea anent Dream Chaser arose primarily because of its quite moderate re-entry G-force profile. But, to act in such a capacity, a Dream Chaser would have to be either continuously on-orbit or on hot stand-by atop a launch vehicle in order to get to wherever it would be needed in time to be helpful. Neither seems economically feasible.
Starship, though, also has quite a gentle re-entry G-load profile compared to capsules and, given that beast’s probable launch cadence only a few years hence, a “metro bus”-type Starship could probably be ready to launch, out of normal sequence, very promptly, then quickly return and re-enter the normal rotation sequence for such vehicles in the event of any serious-but-not-promptly-fatal medical emergency eventuating somewhere in LEO.
The Payload story was interesting. The most interesting remark reported was the one by Starlab’s Smith about NASA having paid for “most of” Commercial Cargo and Crew. Perhaps Smith has insider knowledge about the COTS deal between the then-Orbital Sciences and NASA for what became Cygnus. The failure of RpKistler to perform certainly might have given the more established OrbSci more bargaining power anent COTS than the much newer player, SpaceX. But NASA certainly did not pay “most” of SpaceX’s development bills for Falcon 9 and Dragon 1 – rather less than half, actually.
Crew and Cargo Dragon 2 weren’t exactly swimming in NASA largesse either. Certainly not compared to Starliner early-on. Starliner, of course, will certainly net out as far less a NASA than a Boeing money show when the final ledgers are tallied, but that certainly wasn’t the expectation going in – on either side.
Richard M wrote: “The aggressiveness of Vast’s entire approach is heartening: so much of it feels like SpaceX’s early days, when the whole mindset was to get to market with a minimum viable product, as quickly and cheaply as possible, in order to convince both potential customers and investors to get onboard.”
As you noted: stepping stones. This is the way many startups work. It costs a lot to build full up, but stepping stones can generate revenue as the buildup occurs. Many space companies are doing it this way, sometimes deviating from their intended mission with another one that provides early revenue. SpaceX, an established company, is doing this with Starlink. It looks like a distraction, and maybe it is in the short run, but in the long run the company can do well.
“But the most important customer and investor for all of these commercial station developers remains NASA.”
I think this is true today, but I also think that Vast is working hard to make it less true in the near future. Vast is currently wooing other nations and their space programs to use their Haven-1 or to sign up for Haven-2. The more non-NASA customers that the various space stations can get to buy their services, the less important NASA becomes as a customer. Today, NASA is still the gorilla.
“That if Elon is ever persuaded to develop Starship into another variant as a “free-flyer” station, an all-in-one crew transport and station which simply flies, fully equipped for purpose, as a long duration station of its own and then returns with its human crew back to Earth, why….that could be very hard for commercial stations to compete with.”
There may not be much need for significant special development, as the manned Mars version could easily do the job for at least 6-½ months, as that is the minimum time for a standard trip to Mars. It will be designed for a mission of at least that long.
I agree with Dick Eagleson that this type of Starship mission would likely be decided by economics or else by necessity, if there is more demand than the space stations can supply, similar to the current smallsat Rideshare missions performed by Falcon 9.
Richard M wrote
“The downsides are the big mass penalty and the need for landing gear that has to deploy through your heat shield. The upsides are lower g-loads on reentry and landing, and greater cross range.”
Martin Bayer, a member of the Secret projects Forum, designed a TSTO concept called FSSC-16
On Spaceplanes
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5084/1
Return to Launch Site methods
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391657956_EVALUATING_RETURN_TO_LAUNCH_SITE_RTLS_TECHNOLOGY_IN_ROCKET_LAUNCH_VEHICLES_A_COMPREHENSIVE_REVIEW