October 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.
- Eutelsat-Oneweb changes name to Eutelsat Network Solutions
The OneWeb name now only refers to that constellation, which had merged with Eutelsat in 2022.
- Video and description of Lockheed-Martin’s fourth successful test-to-failure of its own inflatable module design
This prototype included what they called a “penetration plate”, which simulated a hatch or access point into the module to see if that access point would meet specifications. Lockheed is part of the consortium building the Starlab station, so this module will likely be an addition to that giant single module station launched on Starship.
- Axiom Space appoints Dr. Jonathan Cirtain as CEO and president
A former NASA guy at Marshall with additional experience in the private sector. I have no idea if he is a plus or a minus for the company.
- Roscosmos decides its future station will be in the same orbit as ISS, rather than the previously proposed near-polar orbit
This of course assumes it gets launched. Based on Russia’s track record for the past three decades, don’t expect it before 2035, at the earliest. And I am being optimistic.
- Has JWST found an exomoon?
Interesting, though there remains a lot of uncertainty about these conclusions.
- Uranus And Neptune may not be “ice giants” but the solar system’s first “rocky giants”
Also interesting, but less so, as it is based entirely on modeling and theories. I suspect most planetary scientists will not take this very seriously.
- First stage of LandSpace’s Zhuque-3 upgraded rocket is on launch pad with land legs
This Chinese pseudo-company is hoping to launch before the end of the year. Though the first launches of this Falcon 9 copy will not land and reuse the first stage, they plan to begin recovery attempts soon thereafter.
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.
- Eutelsat-Oneweb changes name to Eutelsat Network Solutions
The OneWeb name now only refers to that constellation, which had merged with Eutelsat in 2022.
- Video and description of Lockheed-Martin’s fourth successful test-to-failure of its own inflatable module design
This prototype included what they called a “penetration plate”, which simulated a hatch or access point into the module to see if that access point would meet specifications. Lockheed is part of the consortium building the Starlab station, so this module will likely be an addition to that giant single module station launched on Starship.
- Axiom Space appoints Dr. Jonathan Cirtain as CEO and president
A former NASA guy at Marshall with additional experience in the private sector. I have no idea if he is a plus or a minus for the company.
- Roscosmos decides its future station will be in the same orbit as ISS, rather than the previously proposed near-polar orbit
This of course assumes it gets launched. Based on Russia’s track record for the past three decades, don’t expect it before 2035, at the earliest. And I am being optimistic.
- Has JWST found an exomoon?
Interesting, though there remains a lot of uncertainty about these conclusions.
- Uranus And Neptune may not be “ice giants” but the solar system’s first “rocky giants”
Also interesting, but less so, as it is based entirely on modeling and theories. I suspect most planetary scientists will not take this very seriously.
- First stage of LandSpace’s Zhuque-3 upgraded rocket is on launch pad with land legs
This Chinese pseudo-company is hoping to launch before the end of the year. Though the first launches of this Falcon 9 copy will not land and reuse the first stage, they plan to begin recovery attempts soon thereafter.
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
“”Uranus And Neptune may not be “ice giants” but the solar system’s first “rocky giants.”. Also interesting, but less so, as it is based entirely on modeling and theories.”””
Everything, EVERYTHING about the Globull Warming, Globull Cooling, Climate Change, Climate Crisis Hoax is “”based on modeling and theories.””
Before President Trump, I believe that the most lucrative “theory” was something close to: if I ignore real science, and write extensively about how humans will destroy the Earth unless they return to the stone age, I will receive many years of funding.
Uh-oh. My wife, unbeknownst to me, has been reading BTB. She’s read one of my posts. Wish me luck.
@Patrick Underwood…
I am currently about 12 years happily divorced…. But I’m sure my ex wife would have given me a severe ear bending had she read some of my ranting around the interwebs. Swedes are famously conflict adverse, except when it comes to spouses!
Anyway… The reason I am here. A question for you guys. I just heard that Artemis 2 could be launched as soon as February … ( I’m not holding my breath! ) , now, I’m sure I’m not the only one here that has a bad feeling about this mission. Should the very worst occur, what do you think would it mean to the private space industry? Obviously it would be the end of the NASA human space program, at least for the foreseeable future, but would it have “knock on” effects on private enterprise, and for better or worse? I know you guys have much less interference from the government than we do over here, but then there is public opinion to take into account also.
I am just genuinely interested in hearing what the good folks here think.
I am not worried. Don’t let the folks who slime MSFC get under your skin.
Now, CFD models will have to be looked at, since the return of SuperHeavy in IFT-10 flummoxed the code monkeys.
Some recent findings
https://phys.org/news/2025-10-behavior-precise.html
“Shock waves should not be shocking—engineers across scientific fields need to be able to precisely predict how the instant and strong pressure changes initiate and dissipate to prevent damage. Now, thanks to a team from Yokohama National University, those predictions are even better understood.:
“In work published on Aug. 19 in the Physics of Fluids, the researchers detailed how computational models used to simulate shock wave behavior represent the very weak shock waves in a way that is distinctly different from both theoretical predictions and physical measurements.”
More:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spacex.13774/page-238#post-836274
Space Armor
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Atomic_6_Unveils_Space_Armor_Tiles_to_Shield_Spacecraft_and_Astronauts_from_High_Speed_Debris_999.html
Detector
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quantum_radio_receiver_uses_laser_light_and_atomic_resonance_to_detect_microwaves_999.html
Lee S,
You are correct, they are aiming for Q1 or Q2 for Artemis 2. They recently connected the Orion capsule “Integrity” to the SLS in the VAB.
To answer your question, if something bad were to happen to the mission: If there is a loss of life, Orion would be canceled, SLS canceled, and the only impact to private enterprise would be added government over-site to all manned private missions. All the Artemis/SLS flights would be canceled along with the Lunar Gateway launches by SpaceX, ESA, and JAXA.
There is only one private manned spacecraft, Dragon, and barely Boeing’s Starliner, but it has not passed muster yet. There might be renewed interest is some companies brushing off their manned spacecraft designs, but it would take them more than two years to put up one. SpaceX would reign supreme.
Jay: Like you, I think a failure on Artemis-2 would lead to the cancellation of SLS and maybe Orion, but it would likely fuel an increased national interest in space that would be beneficial to SpaceX and the private industry.
Prior to the Challenger failure, it was always assumed by space geeks that a failure would provide the anti-space crowd the ammunition to shut down NASA. Instead, the failure increased support for the program, so much so that Congress funded a shuttle replacement, Endeavour.
The same thing happened after Columbia’s loss. Though the initial decision by the Bush administration was to fund a big government boondoggle (Constellation that morphed into Artemis), the long term results of all the decisions at that time was to transition to the capitalism model we have today, though the government did it most reluctantly.
An Artemis-2 failure next year I think would only cement that model into place, for sure. I would expect government funding and its space program to shift entirely behind a private effort to explore space, less tied to what that government desires and more in line with what the private sector wants.
It is all too easy to an Artemis failure leading to calls for increased scrutiny of the rest of the industry. Said scrutiny to be carried out by bureaucrats indistinguishable from the ones that caused the problems in the first place.
”Obviously it would be the end of the NASA human space program…”
That isn’t obvious at all. In fact, it isn’t even likely. I suspect the immediate impact would be a renewed focus by NASA on the ISS and CLD programs.
”I think a failure on Artemis-2 would lead to the cancellation of SLS and maybe Orion…”
Certain cancellation of SLS and possible cancellation of Orion? Since you’ve publicly stated multiple times that you consider the two most likely failure modes for Artemis II to be Orion’s heatshield and Orion’s life support system, why would you expect Orion to survive those failures but not SLS? Or is this a statement of the politics of Artemis where every delay is blamed on SLS, even when there’s an SLS stacked on its launch platform waiting for its payload? If so, it’s not NASA assigning blame that way, so I wouldn’t expect them to cancel the wrong program.
Then again, after Viper, they might.
mkent: I think there is a small chance Orion might survive because Lockheed Martin might decide to try to commercialize, as is right now being discussed.
I also think this chance is quite small.
As for SLS, a failure on Artemis-2 would I think make Congress finally look at the rocket’s cost, and decide to go with other options.
I also recognize that my conclusion here is foolishly based on an assumption of rationality from Congress, and that certainly is something one should not rely on.
In both cases, a failure on Artemis-2 would make funding the entire SLS/Orion/Gateway projects quite uncertain. Real questions about their viability are going to be asked at that point.
Lee S asked: “Should the very worst occur, what do you think would it mean to the private space industry?”
This is more difficult to answer than the next question, which has more precedent.
I have asked this question at a Q&A session from someone advocating for commercial manned spaceflight from XCOR, and his answer was to avoid fatalities. This is unreasonable, because fatalities are inevitable even in safe industries. Until commercial space, the only spacecraft that have not killed their crews have flown 12 or fewer times. Not all of the ones with fewer flights are murder-free.
However, SpaceShipTwo has already had a fatal accident, on its 37th manned test flight, none to space, and not only is it still flying, having flown around 37 passengers (57 including pilots) to space. The other commercial manned spacecraft are also flying, so this fatal accident had little effect on the industry’s long term.
The Chinese have flown 43 people — not all different, e.g. Chen Dong is three of the 43. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. had fatalities far before their 43 person in space. Dragon has flown 72 people, four still on ISS, and two of then are Whitmore and Williams as rescued from Boeing. New Glen has flown 86.
In my opinion, Dragon and New Shepard have flown enough people safely that commercial manned spaceflight can survive another fatal accident. Enough people have flown (including Virgin Galactic) to show that it is possible to get people into space, keep them alive in space, then and bring them back to the earth safely. Three commercial space companies have done better than any of the three government manned space agencies, except maybe the Chinese.
Heavy regulation has been put off from commercial manned spaceflight so that commercial companies can figure out how to do it right without a lot of bogus interference from government regulators who know nothing at all about spacecraft and would assume that it is the same as aircraft (just without the wings). After all, what are the differences? Both need to control six degrees of freedom, both need to keep people alive in low pressure environments, and both can get breathing air from the compressor section of the engines (just be sure to keep the passengers hydrated from the dry air).
“Obviously it would be the end of the NASA human space program, at least for the foreseeable future, but would it have ‘knock on’ effects on private enterprise, and for better or worse?”
Even if Orion kills its crew on next year’s flight, I think that Congress will wait for Starship to prove it can carry and return people safely before cancelling Artemis, Orion, and SLS. Apollo took one fatal and one near-fatal accident to get cancelled, and the Space Shuttle took two fatal accidents to get cancelled. With that track record, Artemis should survive its first fatality.
NASA’s manned spaceflight program has survived the loss of three crews from spacecraft failures. The reaction for all three was to shut down the program for a year and a half while investigators made findings that NASA knew about the danger and should have done something about it. A few high level personnel get shuffled around, and NASA returns to operations as normal until the next disaster, two decades later. Two decades? Isn’t that right about now?
So, I guess the next question is: Which spacecraft is going to kill a crew, Dragon, New Shepard, Orion, Starliner, or Virgin Galactic? Or maybe a better question is: When? The best question may be: How do we prevent it before it happens?
If a problem is strictly a flaw with Orion, I could see remaining SLS core launch Interstellar Probe or something.
Edward asked: “So, I guess the next question is: Which spacecraft is going to kill a crew, . . .”
Those are the kinds of morbid, but necessary, questions, that keep insurance companies in business. Orion is preventable right off the bat: don’t fly it. It seems increasingly superfluous; perhaps to the point of being an unnecessary risk, a point sure to be made by lawyers if anything happens.
Lee S,
If Orion kills its crew during Artemis 2 the only private enterprises likely to be significantly affected are the OldSpace contractors Lockheed-Martin, Airbus, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and L3 Harris. They build, respectively, Orion, the Orion service module, SLS core and EUS stages, SLS solid rocket boosters and SLS core and EUS stage engines. LockMart would probably take the biggest hit, but program delays measurable in years would impact each of the others.
SpaceX would almost certainly benefit as it is the only other entity capable of producing an alternate vehicle in reasonable time to handle the part of notional Artemis missions currently slated to be handled by SLS and Orion.
I suppose I should answer the question more generally.
I believe that both the SLS *and* Orion would be cancelled if either the SLS or Orion kills the Artemis 2 crew. Orion capsules cost a billion dollars each and are expendable. There is no commercial market for them. It would be as commercial as the “commercial” SRB — remember the Liberty launch vehicle? It couldn’t exist without a massive subsidy. Neither can Orion. Orion makes Starliner look safe, fast, and cheap by comparison.
Without Orion, the SLS has nothing to launch. Since the 3rd SLS is almost complete, NASA might use it to launch Gateway components if Orion is the source of the accident. But even then, I don’t see SLS surviving past no. 3. Any likely Artemis restructuring would almost certainly be either Dragon, Starliner, or Starship based, and none of those need SLS.
So I think that in the case of a fatal accident NASA refocuses on ISS and CLD for a while while Artemis is massively restructured. SpaceX would push for Starship and Boeing would push for Starliner, but I suspect that NASA would be much more risk-averse and require a Dragon-based solution.
In the meantime commercial space would carry on. Actually, I think it would be accelerated. While the Bernie Sanders and AOC types in the Democratic Party would try to stop everything, Republicans in both the Congress and the administration would push for more private sector involvement. I believe the American people would back the Republicans on this issue. A highly visible government failure would move them toward less government, not more.
Mkent,
“I believe that both the SLS *and* Orion would be cancelled if either the SLS or Orion kills the Artemis 2 crew.”
I tend to agree, though I think there are error bars here depending on just how the loss is caused. If the Orion is completely blameless*, it’s not *impossible* that LockMart lobbying on the Hill could salvage it with funding to adapt to a commercial launcher, especially one built in whole or part in Alabama…
My hope, however, would be that the 2+years needed for the usual accident investigations would buy SpaceX enough development time on Starship to really close the case for commercial replacement in entirety for crew transport to and from the Moon.
__
* I say this fully aware that Orion right now is the riskier of the two vehicles.
If the SLS had held to its original idea it would have flown years ago.
But NASA and politicians wanted more of everything.
What original idea do you mean?
The original idea of replacing the shuttle with shuttle parts re arranged into a standard rocket design. essentially removing the lifting body and replacing it with a huge cargo section.
But it just evolved into the whole SLS moon shot idea because they didn’t have a government project for it.
I know names and projects at NASA change on a dime or at least evolve over years. But essentially they are all the only thing being built.
I think Pzatchok is talking about the original Constellation program before the Augustine Commission changed the Ares-V rocket into the slightly smaller SLS.
Pzatchok,
Are you talking about Shuttle Sidemount?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/
john hare,
In the event of a fresh crew loss disaster, there would certainly be calls – from Democrats – to investigate the whole space industry or even to shut it down. But the Democrats aren’t in charge anymore and look to be standing on the outside looking in for some time.
Richard M,
I also wondered if pzatchok had Sidemount in mind. Not that it matters much. No idea based on Shuttle parts would have been sufficiently economical.
Anent this bit from one of your prior comments:
“My hope, however, would be that the 2+ years needed for the usual accident investigations would buy SpaceX enough development time on Starship to really close the case for commercial replacement in entirety for crew transport to and from the Moon.”
My sentiments also. And it looks as though Interim NASA Admin Duffy may have just guaranteed that outcome, accident or no accident with Artemis 2, by plumping to re-open the HLS competition for Artemis 3 citing SpaceX’s delays as basis. Elon seems eager for the challenge but isn’t planning to hold the current territory of any of the potential new competitors harmless.
Key Musk quote from Berger’s story on this at Ars,
“SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry,” Musk said on the social media site he owns, X. “Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”
Looks as though we’re going to get an SLS-Orion killer on spec from SpaceX in addition to HLS. Spicy times ahead. Or, as Elon likes to say, “Excitement guaranteed.”
Dick Eagleson: Let me quote myself from October 13, 2025, in reporting about the 11th Starship/Superheavy flight:
Whatever Duffy does here in connection to Artemis is almost irrelevant to the real American space program, being run by SpaceX. In the end NASA will have to go to SpaceX, because it really is the only game in town.
Which is also a very sad thing.
Robert Zimmerman wrote: “In the end NASA will have to go to SpaceX, because it really is the only game in town. Which is also a very sad thing.”
So true. Boeing had an opportunity to own most of space, having been the big dog for a couple of decades with the Space Station, SLS, and Starliner, but they messed up so badly that they still are out of NASA’s future procurement pool. Blue Origin had a similar opportunity, but they took so long to get a New Glenn off the pad (airborne) that they are running far behind SpaceX. Rocket Lab and ULA have not yet focused on manned space operations, but I suspect they will get there in a decade or so. Lockheed Martin has Orion, but that is still experimental, expensive and expendable, which means it is not really worth its price tag.*
NASA itself may have depended too much upon Boeing and Lockheed Martin as prime contractors and is now lucky that it began the shift to commercial operations, a couple of decades ago. Now what we need is the commercial space companies to step up to the rapid development model that SpaceX, Rocket Lab, and Stoke Space are demonstrating.
____________
* Yes, I changed the word “unproven” to “experimental” just for the allure of the alliteration.
Thanks guys! Some very insightful and informed comments here on this thread, exactly what I had hoped for!