June 4, 2026 Quick space links
BtB’s stinger Jay reported no links worth posting. Below is one link that reader Nate P. posted in the comments earlier today. This post remains 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.
- France’s The Exploration Company is teasing a new, reusable, Heavy-lift launch vehicle called Yrene
Expect further details in about a week.
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
Jared Isaacman discussing the Blue Origin launch pad cleanup on Fox Business today: “We are decoupling the lander from the launcher and the launchpad itself. What does that mean? It means NASA is laser focused on the lander.”
https://x.com/i/status/2062549870498509043
Wait, what?
A whole lot of people are asking just what Isaacman means. Are they thinking of trying to launch the Blue Moon lander on another rocket? If so, which one?
It is clear Isaacman is clearly implying they are looking for a different rocket to launch it. Whether one exists and is available remains the larger question.
Falcon Heavy is the only one that can be used for both Mark 1 and 2 landers, but it can only be hauled up to LEO.
Jay,
Low Earth orbit (LEO) is all that is needed, because the landing may not happen until after New Glenn is flying again. LEO is needed for the Artemis III mission, and it is possible that New Glenn flies by that time.
Hello Bob,
Yes, it would seem so? But the only obvious alternatives would seem to be (with some modifications) Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Centaur (VC4 or VC6). If that’s what they’re thinking of. (I assume they don’t want to bank on Starship just yet.)
Amusingly, the SLS fanboys on X are giving Jared heavy static because, they whine, Isaacman just cancelled the one other obvious super heavy lifter that could deliver a big lunar lander – SLS Block 1B. To his credit, Jared pushed right back, hard:
https://x.com/i/status/2062662126842327083
Isaacman could also point out that there is as yet no fairing or adapter for a cargo configuration of SLS. And last I heard, the trade study for what it would cost NASA to develop and build those ran to about a billion dollars. (Because of course it did.)
P.S. Jared had a follow up post responding to a query about what the confidence level is for either HLS lander being ready in some form for Artemis III: “We are announcing the Artemis III crew next week. Tune in, because we will also be providing a confidence update on the mission.” That will be worth hearing.
https://x.com/i/status/2062665288814829633
Business as usual, then. Never mind that it wouldn’t be available for years, it would be hideously expensive, and there’s no way NASA could launch two SLSes in quick succession. I’d be delighted ro see any SLS advocate address these challenges forthrightly rather than with a demand for more money, but I won’t get my hopes up.
Nate P,
Quite so. The timing would be impossible with only extant infrastructure even if Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2) was completed and a Block 1B SLS with an Exploration Upper Stage could be built.
The HLS landers are supposed to be able to loiter for up to 100 days awaiting arrival of Orion. In order to stay inside that window, an SLS Block 1 with Orion would have to launch well under 100 days following launch of the notional SLS Block 1B with the lander aboard.
That would require simultaneous stacking of the SLS Block 1 and Block 1B. But only a single assembly bay in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) is currently fitted out to handle SLS stacking and only for the Block 1 model. One of the other VAB bays would have to be refitted to handle stacking of the SLS Block 1B.
Then there’s the perhaps not so little matter of refurbing and turning around the LC-39B pad complex between the two needed launches within the required time window.
Given all of the work needed by The Usual Suspects to support such a scenario – and the considerable additional money needed – this could not possibly occur before the early-to-mid-2030s at the very earliest. Just accumulating all of the needed SLS components would take at least three years. By that time, there would be no point as SpaceX – and perhaps even Blue Origin – will have debuted SLS-Orion replacements and be operating them frequently.
The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (formerly called WFIRST) has a launch date now: August 30.
https://x.com/i/status/2062286509965775063
Jared Isaacman keeps reminding us that it’s ahead of schedule and under budget. Which is worth noting, I guess, given the history of NASA space telescopes.
To Richard M
If Mike Griffin were in charge at Boca, and suddenly revealed Starship was incapable of Artemis–wouldn’t you be as suspicious of that statement, especially if he limited upper stage work to keep SS from being more capable?
Yes, I would be suspicious. That is because Mike Griffin has a long history of putting his various agendas and personal hobbyhorses above sound engineering. He’s the ultimate exemplar that proves having more degrees than a thermometer does not make their holder either wise or sensible.
If you mean to imply, here, that Jared is sidelining SLS-Orion as quickly as he can out of some irrational animus or personal agenda you are quite wrong. He is sidelining SLS-Orion as quickly as possible, but because their physical limitations make them incompatible with producing a significant Moon Base while even the younger among those reading these words are still alive.
Hello Jeff,
I second everything Dick had to say here.
I suppose Nate would rather SLS money be spent on the Iran boondoggle?
My definition of unsustainable is what is happening at the pumps.
But while NewSpacers foam at the mouth about SLS, this is what many more Americans are talking about
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/HixgtPRj21I
I can’t speak for Nate, but I would certainly much prefer that SLS funding was diverted to help end the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is a good and noble purpose and also one capable of accomplishment – which is more than one can say about the usefulness of SLS and Orion beyond the next couple of years.
That the whiny Millennial in the clip fails to understand why temporarily putting up with modestly higher gas prices in order to end the current Iranian regime is a good trade is unsurprising given that she has also swallowed the usual left-wing nonsense about the causes of the 2007-8 financial crisis.
Uh Oh. He played the Trump card. and thud lost the argument.
Jeff,
Can you have a discussion without deflection or insults? You are making a poor case for your position.
Perhaps you would like me to share some of the abusive posts you made towards my person at SPF—you did plenty of insulting there.
At any rate, since this is a post concerning links:
On rockets
https://phys.org/news/2026-06-violent-rocket-particles-reshape-future.html
The study shows that particles traveling at hypersonic speeds do not remain spherical, instead melting and deforming mid-flight in ways that change how heat, drag and energy move through rocket systems. The findings, published in Physics of Fluids, have led researchers to develop a new drag model that more accurately predicts particle behavior under extreme conditions. The findings could also apply to atmospheric reentry, energy systems and other high-temperature industrial processes involving nanoparticles.
This is the biggie
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-06-looping-lasers-whisk-molten-metals.html
(The) researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have invented a way to whisk metal with a laser as it’s 3D-printed, opening a new route for creating hard-to-make metal alloys. To verify their success, they also developed a way to watch changes in the metal using X-rays as they melted and solidified in a fraction of a second. As described in the journal Additive Manufacturing, the NIST-led team demonstrated a new way to 3D-print these elusive alloys by whisking them together with the printer’s laser. And since this method can bring together the discordant metals of HEAs, it could also be used to bring together the more harmonious metals of conventional alloys.
Instead of having the laser trace straight lines, Yeung and his team directed the laser to draw loop-the-loops as it moved, stirring the metal together as it was melting.
“Commercial 3D printer software can’t make these patterns,” explained Yeung. “They are very limited in how the laser’s path can be adjusted, so we had to write the software from scratch.” However, since this solution doesn’t require any new major parts, existing metal 3D printers could be programmed to use this technique.
To prove their method worked, the researchers put it through a challenging test by combining two metals that are normally extremely hard to mix together: a dense high-entropy alloy called RHEA-19 and a lightweight titanium alloy. They layered the metals next to each other and then passed the looping laser across the edge of the layers. Then they checked to see if the metals effectively combined into a new alloy.
To do that, they needed to examine the atomic structure of the metal in real time as it cooled from molten liquid to solid metal. This is an extremely challenging measurement because the metals are dense and that solidification happens in less than a second. The NIST team needed a powerful X-ray machine.
In the same way an office printer only has four inks and then mixes them to make any color, this new stirring method could be an effective way to combine elemental metal powders into alloys within the printer. This would make metal 3D printing less expensive and more versatile. It could even be used to slowly alter alloys throughout metal parts. The blade of a jet turbine could be 3D-printed out of several different metals without the need for welding, which might create weak spots.
“We want to accelerate alloy making,” said Yeung. “Metal 3D printing has the potential to make parts that used to be impossible.”
Jeff Wright: Nate P has certainly been harsh at times in responding to you, but he always supplements his comments with detailed factual information that counters your positions. And he repeatedly asks you for a similar effort.
You however never do anything but sling hostile comments without ever making any effort to back up your claims. Not once in the years you have been commenting here have you ever addressed the high cost of SLS and Orion that makes both impractical. Not once. For you, the money grows on trees, and we should spend it endlessly because YOU think it is the right thing to do.
So for once, answer this one question: Where is the money to come from? Congress won’t spend it. Private investment doesn’t have it. Whose going to pay for it?
Anyway, I tolerate your shallow and sometimes incoherent commentary because it is very successful in generating very good and detailed responses that educate the public. In this at least you serve a purpose.
Hostility is all I ever got from New Spacers.
For years–we were told NASA should not build rockets…that it should be more like NACA.
They do a NACA with the recent supersonic test–and you don’t like either… it’s as if you want everyone in NASA to lose jobs….the very definition of hostility.
New Glenn was and is behind as well, but you never went after them like you did the fine folks who gave America the victory of Artemis II.
Jeff Wright: You still haven’t answered this basic question: Who pays for all your dreams? Who pays for SLS? Why should taxpayers pay for your dreams, or for Lockheed Martin’s toys when private enterprise does it better, cheaper, and from money voluntarily given.?
Tough questions are not hostility, Jeff.
Did Robert say that? If not, why take out your frustration on him?
As for Robert supposedly wanting everyone in NASA to lose their jobs, there’s no evidence of this. Take a step back and stop assuming people who disagree with you are cartoonish monsters, please.
Think about what values Robert has that would make him more complimentary of New Glenn than of the SLS, and assume that he doesn’t think he’s a bad guy. What conclusions can you draw? Try not to strawman him, but steelman his arguments.
Jeff Wright,
You wrote: “Hostility is all I ever got from New Spacers.”
Actually, you get a lot of disagreement. This is not hostility, but it is disagreement.
It is one thing to dream, as you do, but it is another to make the dreams come true. Sometimes when I am solving a problem, I start with a solution that is direct but unworkable. There may be ways around the unworkable part that make it not only practicable but practical, too. If not, I try again. This is how we make seemingly impossible things happen, but we cannot fixate on one solution, we must be flexible enough to abandon our favorite ideas for ideas that we can find ways to work. This may mean throwing a lot of spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks,* but we have to be willing to continue the boiling process until the noodles finally stick.
You present a lot of dreams, but many are dreams that are not shared by others. You often fail to make a case why we should or could make your dreams reality. It would be nice if the Falcons had hydrolox propulsion, because the efficiency would allow for more payload capability. Unfortunately, you fail to give a reasonable and affordable solution, and you do not pique our interests enough to even ponder any impractical ideas, much less work at making them practical.
Merely sticking someone else’s upper stage on a Falcon may sound like a good idea when said really fast, but a little thought reveals flaws that must be overcome in order to make it practical. The goal is not just greater payload capacity — technical efficiency is how we ended up with the wildly impractical SLS — the goal is affordability, and that has already been achieved at the cost of capacity. Starship’s goal is to mate the affordability with the capacity. Your choice of solution is hydrogen fuel, but the more practical solution is to wage war with the rocket equation on one front while waging war with high costs on another front. The results of these two wars is why so many people favor Starship over SLS. NewSpace has not backed down from this two-front war, but NASA did many decades ago.
Many have made the case for why SLS is doomed in favor of more thought out, more researched, and more developed launch vehicles and their launch systems — and that noodle sticks every time.
My point is — however — keep on dreaming, but make a case for us to work toward that dream. It helps make the spaghetti stick. Musk once announced the ridiculous notion of sending people to Mars for the price of a house. How ludicrous is that? To add to the terrible dream, he thought he should build a colony on Mars. But right now he is well on his way of making that come true, although not quite as soon has he had imagined, because he made a solid case to people who could do something about it. The spaghetti stuck. Some dreams can come true, even without a fairy godmother.
“For years–we were told NASA should not build rockets…that it should be more like NACA.”
We have forsaken NASA because they surrendered to the second enemy. NewSpace has braved the two-front war, but our taxes are squandered by a government that surrendered the day they realized that the Space Shuttle was not as capable as intended and was more expensive than expected. Rather than regroup and change war strategies, NASA accepted the defeat, spending decades using the disappointing result of its previous war. When the Shuttle retired, NASA retreated to an inferior version of Apollo, worse than 1960s technologies and methods.
Who should agree with that surrender?
“They do a NACA with the recent supersonic test–and you don’t like either… it’s as if you want everyone in NASA to lose jobs….the very definition of hostility.”
NACA was very successful with aviation and supersonic technologies, both of which suffered once NASA focused not on aviation (the little “a” in NaSA) but on Space (the big S in naSa). Meanwhile, it has been commercial companies, like Boom, that have been making practical advances in supersonic aircraft. It has been two-thirds of a century since any real advancements in aviation, and it took a private commercial aviation company to do it.
Perhaps NASA’s best and brightest should abandon ship for the more productive NewSpace companies. Jobs not lost, just changed to more productive ones.
“New Glenn was and is behind as well, but you never went after them like you did the fine folks who gave America the victory of Artemis II.”
Jeff, you just have not been paying attention. Our host has been very critical of Blue Origin’s slow years. It was not New Glenn that was behind, it was the BE-4 engine that was behind, adversely affecting ULA’s Vulcan, too. He may be less critical now, because it looks like Blue Origin is trying harder, but he has still noted that they are not yet fast. The recent New Glenn explosion is not helping their cause any.
Many of we New Space admirers have been eager for more launch vehicles, even if they are the less reusable (future) Vulcan or even the expendable Ariane 6. We know that the reusable medium — and larger — launchers are going to outlast the expendable ones. I hope that someone figures out how to make a practical reusable smallsat launcher. Meanwhile, it is NewSpace companies that are making reusability happen and OldSpace companies and countries that are not.
If only SLS had been designed to launch more often, it would be useful, and if it were significantly less expensive as well, then it would be a practical launch vehicle. As it is, it isn’t even suitable for its job of supporting a sustainable lunar base. It is on its way out, and has been ever since it became known that it was expensive and could not launch often enough to be useful to anyone, even NASA. NASA made a rocket that can lift a nice payload, but it made a system that does not use the rocket well.
_____________
* By the way, take the noodle off the wall right away. In college, I once moved into an apartment in which the roommate kept the noodle on the wall too long, and there was a noodle-shaped mark on the carefully painted mural where a spaghetti noodle stripped off the paint when he finally removed the then-dried noodle. *sigh* Roommates. Can’t live with them; can’t afford the place without them.
Sartre said, “Hell is other people.” He was off by one word: “other.” Drop that word and he is far more correct.
Anent The Exploration Company’s (TEC) rocket plans, Andrew Parsonson’s story about this says, “Since publication, references to Yrene appear to have been removed from The Exploration Company’s website.” Yup – I couldn’t find any. So, Goodnight Yrene, it seems, at least for now.
TEC is French so I suppose there was a natural inclination to tease a bit of leg around the edge of the curtain prior to the lady’s full appearance, but that is apparently going to be several years away so no one but the stagehands is going to get any additional look at her for some time.
In configuration, Yrene will apparently be a larger methalox version of Falcon 9 with sub-Raptor-ish Full-Flow Staged Combustion ‘Storm’ engines producing 180 tonnes of thrust each (not quite 400K lbf) for a total lift-off thrust of 3.56M lbf. That puts Yrene just past the mid-point between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy and roughly comparable to New Glenn 7×2. A very respectable rocket, when and if.
The when appears to be not earlier than the middle of the next decade. Even so, I figure Yrene to have a good chance to ninja the notional Ariane Next. I hope so – it’s the romantic in me.
Some time ago there was an announcement by another French company of a rocket project whose intended vehicle was to be roughly as powerful as New Glenn 9×4. Sadly, I can no longer recall either the company name or that of the rocket, but the company supposedly had backing from actress Salma Hayek’s billionaire husband. Since then, crickets. One hopes Yrene does not similarly vanish.
Do you mean HStar Space? Or Sirius Space Services?
HStar sounds familiar. I don’t recall that the notional vehicle had a name yet, but it was supposed to be 8 meters in diameter – right between New Glenn’s 7 and Starship’s 9.
Goodnight Yrene—-LOL
Hey Bob-
Just saw the astronauts aboard the ISS were ordered to dragon during air leak repair by the Russians
Mike a: Refresh your browser to see my post about that air leak.
Following up on Mike’s post, NASA spokeswoman Bethany Stevens had a tweet that explains what happened on ISS, with a followup a few minutes ago:
https://x.com/i/status/2062886271064633576
I don’t see anything on NASA’s website yet.
Scott Manley asks an interesting question: just exactly which astronauts sheltered in the Dragon?
https://x.com/i/status/2062905675760665031
Richard M: Refresh your browser.
As I can’t find a reply button when replies are nested three deep:
Jeff Wright,
This is something called DARVO, Jeff. You’re avoiding any responsibility for your behavior by attempting to make yourself out to be a victim. I will freely admit that, as Robert said, I’ve been harsh towards you sometimes. I could be politer. But I in turn would appreciate you making a real effort to respond to criticism. It is not unfair for others to bring up NASA’s budget, the SLS’s flight rate, and so on. It is reality. Reality is often uncomfortable, and ignoring difficulties doesn’t make them go away.
Nate P: I’ve let my web guy know about the missing reply button. I hope this can be fixed.
Nate P: Shane explained I can change the settings to allow nested replies more than 3. I have changed it to six, but at the moment that means replies will stop at that point.
I will see about fixing the missing reply button after that.
I wondered why it just appeared. I didn’t realize it was a limitation of the system. It makes sense, eventually replies get too nested and you’re completely off the original topic, most likely. Thanks!
Nate P: Shane has told me that nesting more than three is a mistake, so I have reset it back to three. When he has time he will look into seeing if he can change things so the reply button remains at that point and the nesting goes flat.
Shane says now that replying after three nests is now possible. It simply will no longer nest.
That will allow for direct replies and keep things readable. That’s great. Thanks again!
Regarding compute infrastructure, SpaceX signed an agreement with Google to provide hardware for $920 million per month: https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2062972460018905246?s=46
That’s good news. Better Elon spends Google money than they do.
Meanwhile
https://redstate.com/ben-smith/2026/06/07/the-cia-officer-found-with-40-million-in-gold-allegedly-created-his-own-spy-program-n2203112
I never had much use for the latest generation of spooks.