NASA – Page 8

Trump wants to “eliminate or expedite” environmental rules for rocket launches

commercial launches, elon musk, fee, NASA, Space, spacex, syndication / 9u50fv / July 22, 2025

Who cares about environmental impacts?

SpaceX, other commercial launch firms, have been seeking this change in policy.

In the background, a Falcon 9 rocket climbs away from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Another Falcon 9 stands on its launch pad at neighboring Kennedy Space Center awaiting its opportunity to fly.

The Trump administration is considering slashing rules meant to protect the environment and the public during commercial rocket launches, changes that companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX have long sought.

A draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies, and viewed by ProPublica, directs Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy to “use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite” environmental reviews for launch licenses. It could also, in time, require states to allow more launches or even more launch sites—known as spaceports—along their coastlines.

The order is a step toward the rollback of federal oversight that Musk, who has fought bitterly with the Federal Aviation Administration over his space operations, and others have pushed for. Commercial rocket launches have grown exponentially more frequent in recent years.

Critics warn such a move could have dangerous consequences.

“It would not be reasonable for them to be rescinding regulations that are there to protect the public interest, and the public, from harm,” said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit that works to protect animals and the environment. “And that’s my fear here: Are they going to change things in a way that puts people at risk, that puts habitats and wildlife at risk?”

The White House did not answer questions about the draft order.

“The Trump administration is committed to cementing America’s dominance in space without compromising public safety or national security,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. “Unless announced by President Trump, however, discussion about any potential policy changes should be deemed speculation.”

The order would give Trump even more direct control over the space industry’s chief regulator by turning the civil servant position leading the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation into a political appointment. The last head of the office and two other top officials recently took voluntary separation offers.

The order would also create a new adviser to the transportation secretary to shepherd in deregulation of the space industry.

The draft order comes as SpaceX is ramping up its ambitious project to build a reusable deep-space rocket to carry people to Earth’s orbit, the moon and eventually Mars. The rocket, called Starship, is the largest, most powerful ever built, standing 403 feet tall with its booster. The company has hit some milestones but has also been beset by problems, as three of the rockets launched from Texas this year have exploded—disrupting air traffic and raining debris on beaches and roads in the Caribbean and Gulf waters.

The draft order also seeks to restrict the authority of state coastal officials who have challenged commercial launch companies like SpaceX, documents show. It could lead to federal officials interfering with state efforts to enforce their environmental rules when they conflict with the construction or operation of spaceports.

Derek Brockbank, executive director for the Coastal States Organization, said the proposed executive order could ultimately force state commissions to prioritize spaceport infrastructure over other land uses, such as renewable energy, waterfront development, or coastal restoration, along the coastline. His nonprofit represents 34 coastal states and territories.

“It’s concerning that it could potentially undermine the rights of a state to determine how it wants its coast used, which was the very fundamental premise of the congressionally authorized Coastal Zone Management Act,” he said. “We shouldn’t see any president, no matter what their party is, coming in and saying, ‘This is what a state should prioritize or should do.’”

SpaceX is already suing the California Coastal Commission, accusing the agency of political bias and interference with the company’s efforts to increase the number of Falcon 9 rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The reusable Falcon 9 is SpaceX’s workhorse rocket, ferrying satellites to orbit and astronauts to the International Space Station.

The changes outlined in the order would greatly benefit SpaceX, which launches far more rockets into space than any other company in the US. But it would also help rivals such as Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and California-based Rocket Lab. The companies have been pushing to pare down oversight for years, warning that the US is racing with China to return to the moon—in hopes of mining resources like water and rare earth metals and using it as a stepping stone to Mars—and could lose if regulations don’t allow US companies to move faster, said Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Space Federation, a trade group that represents eight launch companies, including SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab.

“It sounds like they’ve been listening to industry, because all of those things are things that we’ve been advocating for strongly,” Cavossa said when asked about the contents of the draft order.

Cavossa said he sees “some sort of environmental review process” continuing to take place. “What we’re talking about doing is right-sizing it,” he said.

He added, “We can’t handle a yearlong delay for launch licenses.”

The former head of the FAA’s commercial space office said at a Congressional hearing last September that the office took an average of 151 days to issue a new license during the previous 11 years.

Commercial space launches have boomed in recent years—from 26 in 2019 to 157 last year. With more than 500 total launches, mostly from Texas, Florida, and California, SpaceX has been responsible for the lion’s share, according to FAA data.

But the company has tangled with the FAA, which last year proposed fining it $633,000 for violations related to two of its launches. The FAA did not answer a question last week about the status of the proposed fine.

SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and the FAA did not respond to requests for comment.

Currently, the FAA’s environmental reviews look at 14 types of potential impacts that include air and water quality, noise pollution, and land use, and provide details about the launches that are not otherwise available. They have at times drawn big responses from the public.

When SpaceX sought to increase its Starship launches in Texas from five to 25 a year, residents and government agencies submitted thousands of comments. Most of the nearly 11,400 publicly posted comments opposed the increase, a ProPublica analysis found. The FAA approved the increase anyway earlier this year. After conducting an environmental assessment for the May launch of SpaceX’s Starship Flight 9 from Texas, the FAA released documents that revealed as many as 175 airline flights could be disrupted and Turks and Caicos’ Providenciales International Airport would need to close during the launch.

In addition to seeking to cut short environmental reviews, the executive order would open the door for the federal government to rescind sections of the federal rule that seeks to keep the public safe during launches and reentries.

The rule, referred to as Part 450, was approved during Trump’s first term and aimed to streamline commercial space regulations and speed approvals of launches. But the rule soon fell out of favor with launch companies, which said the FAA didn’t provide enough guidance on how to comply and was taking too long to review applications.

Musk helped lead the charge. Last September, he told attendees at a conference in Los Angeles, “It really should not be possible to build a giant rocket faster than paper can move from one desk to another.” He called for the resignation of the head of the FAA, who stepped down as Trump took office.

Other operators have expressed similar frustration, and some members of Congress have signaled support for an overhaul. In February, Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., signed a letter asking the Government Accountability Office to review the process for approving commercial launches and reentries.

In their letter, Babin and Lofgren wrote they wanted to understand whether the rules are “effectively and efficiently accommodating United States commercial launch and reentry operations, especially as the cadence and technological diversity of such operations continues to increase.

The draft executive order directs the secretary of transportation to “reevaluate, amend, or rescind” sections of Part 450 to “enable a diversified set of operators to achieve an increase in commercial space launch cadence and novel space activities by an order of magnitude by 2030.”

The order also directs the Department of Commerce to streamline regulation of novel space activity, which experts say could include things like mining or making repairs in space, that doesn’t fall under other regulations.

Brandon Roberts and Pratheek Rebala contributed data analysis.

This story originally appeared on ProPublica.

Trump wants to “eliminate or expedite” environmental rules for rocket launches Read More »

Nearly 3,000 people are leaving NASA, and this director is one of them

federal budget, goddard space flight center, NASA, nasa budget, Science, Space, space policy, space science / Beth Washington / July 22, 2025

You can add another name to the thousands of employees leaving NASA as the Trump administration primes the space agency for a 25 percent budget cut.

On Monday, NASA announced that Makenzie Lystrup will leave her post as director of the Goddard Space Flight Center on Friday, August 1. Lystrup has held the top job at Goddard since April 2023, overseeing a staff of more than 8,000 civil servants and contractor employees and a budget last year of about $4.7 billion.

These figures make Goddard the largest of NASA’s 10 field centers primarily devoted to scientific research and development of robotic space missions, with a budget and workforce comparable to NASA’s human spaceflight centers in Texas, Florida, and Alabama. Officials at Goddard manage the James Webb and Hubble telescopes in space, and Goddard engineers are assembling the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, another flagship observatory scheduled for launch late next year.

“We’re grateful to Makenzie for her leadership at NASA Goddard for more than two years, including her work to inspire a Golden Age of explorers, scientists, and engineers,” Vanessa Wyche, NASA’s acting associate administrator, said in a statement.

Cynthia Simmons, Goddard’s deputy director, will take over as acting chief at the space center. Simmons started work at Goddard as a contract engineer 25 years ago.

Lystrup came to NASA from Ball Aerospace, now part of BAE Systems, where she managed the company’s work on civilian space projects for NASA and other federal agencies. Before joining Ball Aerospace, Lystrup earned a doctorate in astrophysics from University College London and conducted research as a planetary astronomer.

Formal dissent

The announcement of Lystrup’s departure from Goddard came hours after the release of an open letter to NASA’s interim administrator, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, signed by hundreds of current and former agency employees. The letter, titled the “The Voyager Declaration,” identifies what the signatories call “recent policies that have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission.”

Nearly 3,000 people are leaving NASA, and this director is one of them Read More »

As White House talks about impounding NASA funding, Congress takes the threat seriously

budget, congress, NASA, Space, White House / Kelly Newman / July 19, 2025

This year, given the recent action on the budget measures, it is possible that Congress could pass Appropriations legislation for most of the federal government, including NASA before October 1.

Certainly there is motivation to do so, because the White House and its Office of Management and Budget, led by Russ Vought, has indicated that in absence of Appropriations legislation it is planning to take measures that would implement the Presidents Budget Request, which set significantly lower spending levels for NASA and other federal agencies.

For example, as Ars reported earlier this month, the principal investigators of NASA science missions that White House seeks to kill have been told to create termination plans that could be implemented within three months, beginning as soon as October 1.

Whether there is a continuing resolution, or shutdown, then, the White House appears likely to go to court to implement its spending priorities at federal agencies, including NASA.

Congress acknowledges the threat

This week the Ranking Members of House committee with oversight over NASA raised the alarm publicly about this in a letter to Sean Duffy, the Secretary of Transportation who was recently named interim administrator of NASA as well.

NASA appears to be acting in accordance with a fringe, extremist ideology emanating from the White House Office of Management and Budget that asserts a right to impound funds appropriated by Congress for the sake of executive branch priorities. Moreover, it now appears that the agency intends to implement funding cuts that were never enacted by Congress in order to “align” the agency’s present-day budget with the Trump Administration’s slash-and-burn proposed budget for the next fiscal year, with seemingly no concern for the devastation that will be caused by mass layoffs, widespread program terminations, and the possible closure of critical centers and facilities. These decisions are wrong, and they are not yours to make.

The letter reminds Duffy that Congress sets the budget, and federal agencies work toward those budget levels. However, the legislators say, NASA is moving ahead with funding freezes for various programs reducing employees across the agency. Approximately 2,700 employees have left the agency since the beginning of the Trump Administration.

As White House talks about impounding NASA funding, Congress takes the threat seriously Read More »

After a partly successful test flight, European firm eyes space station mission

crew spacecraft, exploration company, NASA, nyx, Space / 9u50fv / July 18, 2025

Last month, the parachutes on Hélène Huby’s small spacecraft failed to deploy, and the vehicle and its cargo crashed into the ocean on Earth.

It was both a success and a failure.

The success was that after Huby founded The Exploration Company in Europe, she managed to move nimbly with the “Mission Possible” spacecraft such that it cost less than $25 million to build and reached space in less than three years. The vehicle ticked off a number of successes in spaceflight before making a controlled descent through the atmosphere.

But at 26 km above the planet, as the spacecraft slowed to Mach one, The Exploration Company lost contact. Huby was not sure how this loss would be received in Europe, where failures in spaceflight have not been traditionally well-tolerated.

“What was interesting is the feedback I got in Europe,” Huby said in an interview this week at the company’s offices in Houston. “The German Space Agency, the French space agency, the European Space Agency said, OK, that’s a great achievement. For the time and money we spent, performing 80 percent of that mission was a good investment.”

No drop tests

After the spacecraft was lost on June 24, the company established an independent investigation team. Huby said it is “99 percent” confirmed there was a problem with the deployment of the parachutes, either the drogue chutes or the main parachutes. The fault was not with the provider of the parachutes themselves, US-based Airborne Systems, but the company’s mechanism, she said.

To save time and money, The Exploration Company did not conduct any drop tests. Such a campaign would have added millions of dollars to a program that was trying to be lean, plus a year of schedule to a mission attempting to move fast.

“We made a mistake, basically, to underestimate the risks,” she said. In retrospect, Huby added, the company could have done more testing on the ground.

Now the firm faces a big decision: How to proceed from here. One option is building another small spacecraft, similar to Mission Possible, for testing purposes. But there is limited commonality in the parachute system for this vehicle and the larger Nyx spacecraft the company is building for operational missions. So if the Mission Possible parachutes were to work, that would not guarantee success for Nyx.

After a partly successful test flight, European firm eyes space station mission Read More »

The ISS is nearing retirement, so why is NASA still gung-ho about Starliner?

Boeing, commercial crew, Features, human spaceflight, international space station, NASA, Science, Space, starliner / DJ Henderson / July 16, 2025

NASA is doing all it can to ensure Boeing doesn’t abandon the Starliner program.

Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket before a test flight in 2019. Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky

After so many delays, difficulties, and disappointments, you might be inclined to think that NASA wants to wash its hands of Boeing’s troubled Starliner spacecraft.

But that’s not the case.

The manager of NASA’s commercial crew program, Steve Stich, told reporters Thursday that Boeing and its propulsion supplier, Aerojet Rocketdyne, are moving forward with several changes to the Starliner spacecraft to resolve problems that bedeviled a test flight to the International Space Station (ISS) last year. These changes include new seals to plug helium leaks and thermal shunts and barriers to keep the spacecraft’s thrusters from overheating.

Boeing, now more than $2 billion in the hole to pay for all Starliner’s delays, is still more than a year away from executing on its multibillion-dollar NASA contract and beginning crew rotation flights to the ISS. But NASA officials say Boeing remains committed to Starliner.

“We really are working toward a flight as soon as early next year with Starliner, and then ultimately, our goal is to get into crew rotation flights with Starliner,” Stich said. “And those would start no earlier than the second crew rotation slot at the end of next year.”

That would be 11 years after Boeing officials anticipated the spacecraft would enter operational service for NASA when they announced the Starliner program in 2010.

Decision point

The next Starliner flight will probably transport only cargo to the ISS, not astronauts. But NASA hasn’t made any final decisions on the matter. The agency has enough crew rotation missions booked to fly on SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft to cover the space station’s needs until well into 2027 or 2028.

“I think there are a lot of advantages, I would say, to fly the cargo flight first,” Stich said. “If we really look at the history of Starliner and Dragon, I think Dragon benefited a lot from having earlier [cargo] flights before the crew contract was let for the space station.”

One drawback of flying a Starliner cargo mission is that it will use up one of United Launch Alliance’s remaining Atlas V rockets currently earmarked for a future Starliner crew launch. That means Boeing would have to turn to another rocket to accomplish its full contract with NASA, which covers up to six crew missions.

While Boeing says Starliner can launch on several different rockets, the difficulty of adapting the spacecraft to a new launch vehicle, such as ULA’s Vulcan, shouldn’t be overlooked. Early in Starliner’s development, Boeing and ULA had to overcome an issue with unexpected aerodynamic loads discovered during wind tunnel testing. This prompted engineers to design an aerodynamic extension, or skirt, to go underneath the Starliner spacecraft on top of its Atlas V launcher.

Starliner has suffered delays from the beginning. A NASA budget crunch in the early 2010s pushed back the program about two years, but the rest of the schedule slips have largely fallen on Boeing’s shoulders. The setbacks included a fuel leak and fire during a critical ground test, parachute problems, a redesign to accommodate unanticipated aerodynamic forces, and a computer timing error that cut short Starliner’s first attempt to reach the space station in 2019.

This all culminated in the program’s first test flight with astronauts last summer. But after running into helium leaks and overheating thrusters, the mission ended with Starliner returning to Earth empty, while the spacecraft’s two crew members remained on the International Space Station until they could come home on a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft this year.

The outcome was a stinging disappointment for Boeing. Going into last year’s crew test flight, Boeing appeared to be on the cusp of joining SpaceX and finally earning revenue as one of NASA’s certified crew transportation providers for the ISS.

For several months, Boeing officials were strikingly silent on Starliner’s future. The company declined to release any statements on their long-term commitment to the program, and a Boeing program manager unexpectedly withdrew from a NASA press conference marking the end of the Starliner test flight last September.

Kelly Ortberg, Boeing’s president and CEO, testifies before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on April 2, 2025, in Washington, DC. Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

But that has changed in the last few months. Kelly Ortberg, who took over as Boeing’s CEO last year, told CNBC in April that the company planned “more missions on Starliner” and said work to overcome the thruster issues the spacecraft encountered last year is “pretty straightforward.”

“We know what the problems were, and we’re making corrective actions,” Ortberg said. “So, we hope to do a few more flights here in the coming years.”

Task and purpose

NASA officials remain eager for Starliner to begin these regular crew rotation flights, even as its sole destination, the ISS, enters its sunset years. NASA and its international partners plan to decommission and scuttle the space station in 2030 and 2031, more than 30 years after the launch of the lab’s first module.

NASA’s desire to bring Starliner online has nothing to do with any performance issues with SpaceX, the agency’s other commercial crew provider. SpaceX has met or exceeded all of NASA’s expectations in 11 long-duration flights to the ISS with its Dragon spacecraft. Since its first crew flight in 2020, SpaceX has established a reliable cadence with Dragon missions serving NASA and private customers.

However, there are some questions about SpaceX’s long-term plans for the Dragon program, and those concerns didn’t suddenly spring up last month, when SpaceX founder and chief executive Elon Musk suggested on X that SpaceX would “immediately” begin winding down the Dragon program. The suggestion came as Musk and President Donald Trump exchanged threats and insults on social media amid a feud as the one-time political allies had a dramatic falling out months into Trump’s second term in the White House.

In a subsequent post on X, Musk quickly went back on his threat to soon end the Dragon program. SpaceX officials participating in NASA press conferences in the last few weeks have emphasized the company’s dedication to human spaceflight without specifically mentioning Dragon. SpaceX’s fifth and final human-rated Dragon capsule debuted last month on its first flight to the ISS.

“I would say we’re pretty committed to the space business,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX’s vice president of build and flight reliability. “We’re committed to flying humans in space and doing it safely.”

There’s a kernel of truth behind Musk’s threat to decommission Dragon. Musk has long had an appetite to move on from the Dragon program and pivot more of SpaceX’s resources to Starship, the company’s massive next-generation rocket. Starship is envisioned by SpaceX as an eventual replacement for Dragon and the Falcon 9 launcher.

A high-resolution commercial Earth-imaging satellite owned by Maxar captured this view of the International Space Station on June 7, 2024, with Boeing’s Starliner capsule docked at the lab’s forward port (lower right). Credit: Satellite image (c) 2024 Maxar Technologies

NASA hopes commercial space stations can take over for the ISS after its retirement, but there’s no guarantee SpaceX will still be flying Dragon in the 2030s. This injects some uncertainty into plans for commercial space stations.

One possible scenario is that, sometime in the 2030s, the only options for transporting people to and from commercial space stations in low-Earth orbit could be Starliner and Starship. We’ll discuss the rationale for this scenario later in this story.

While the cost of a seat on SpaceX’s Dragon is well known, there’s low confidence in the price of a ticket to low-Earth orbit on Starliner or Starship. What’s more, some of the commercial outposts may be incompatible with Starship because of its enormous mass, which could overcome the ability of a relatively modest space station to control its orientation. NASA identified this as an issue with its Gateway mini-space station in development to fly in orbit around the Moon.

It’s impossible to predict when SpaceX will pull the plug on Dragon. The same goes with Boeing and Starliner. But NASA and other customers are interested in buying more Dragon flights.

If SpaceX can prove Starship is safe enough to launch and land with people onboard, Dragon’s days will be numbered. But Starship is likely at least several years from being human-rated for flights to and from low-Earth orbit. NASA’s contract with SpaceX to develop a version of Starship to land astronauts on the Moon won’t require the ship to be certified for launches and landings on Earth. In some ways, that’s a more onerous challenge than the Moon mission because of the perils of reentering Earth’s atmosphere, which Starship won’t need to endure for a lunar landing, and the ship’s lack of a launch abort system.

Once operational, Starship is designed to carry significantly more cargo and people than Falcon 9 and Dragon, but it’s anyone’s guess when it might be ready for crew missions. Until then, if SpaceX wants to have an operational human spaceflight program, it’s Dragon or bust.

For the International Space Station, it’s also Dragon or bust, at least until Boeing gets going. SpaceX’s capsules are the only US vehicles certified to fly to space with NASA astronauts, and any more US government payments to Russia to launch Americans on Soyuz missions would be politically unpalatable.

From the start of the commercial crew program, NASA sought two contractors providing their own means of flying to and from the ISS. The main argument for this “dissimilar redundancy” was to ensure NASA could still access the space station in the event of a launch failure or some other technical problem. The same argument could be made now that NASA needs two options to avoid being at the whim of one company’s decisions.

Stretching out

All of this is unfolding as the Trump administration seeks to slash funding for the International Space Station, cut back on the lab’s research program, and transition to “minimal safe operations” for the final few years of its life. Essentially, the space station would limp to the finish line, perhaps with a smaller crew than the seven-person staff living and working in it today.

At the end of this month, SpaceX is scheduled to launch the Crew-11 mission—the 12th Dragon crew mission for NASA and the 11th fully operational crew ferry flight to the ISS. Two Americans, one Japanese astronaut, and a Russian cosmonaut will ride to the station for a stay of at least six months.

NASA’s existing contract with SpaceX covers four more long-duration flights to the space station with Dragon, including the mission set to go on July 31.

One way NASA can save money in the space station’s budget is by simply flying fewer missions. Stich said Thursday that NASA is working with SpaceX to extend the Dragon spacecraft’s mission duration limit from seven months to eight months. The recertification of Dragon for a longer mission could be finished later this year, allowing NASA to extend Crew-11’s stay at the ISS if needed. Over time, longer stays mean fewer crew rotation missions.

“We can extend the mission in real-time as needed as we better understand… the appropriations process and what that means relative to the overall station manifest,” Stich said.

Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft backs away from the International Space Station on September 6, 2024, without its crew. Credit: NASA

Boeing’s fixed-price contract with NASA originally covered an unpiloted test flight of Starliner, a demonstration flight with astronauts, and then up to six operational missions delivering crews to the ISS. But NASA has only given Boeing the “Authority To Proceed” for three of its six potential operational Starliner missions. This milestone, known as ATP, is a decision point in contracting lingo where the customer—in this case, NASA—places a firm order for a deliverable. NASA has previously said it awards these task orders about two to three years prior to a mission’s launch.

If NASA opts to go to eight-month missions on the ISS with Dragon and Starliner, the agency’s firm orders for three Boeing missions and four more SpaceX crew flights would cover the agency’s needs into early 2030, not long before the final crew will depart the space station.

Stich said NASA officials are examining their options. These include whether NASA should book more crew missions with SpaceX, authorize Boeing to prepare for additional Starliner flights beyond the first three, or order no more flights at all.

“As we better understand the budget and better understand what’s in front of us, we’re working through that,” Stich said. “It’s really too early to speculate how many flights we’ll fly with each provider, SpaceX and Boeing.”

Planning for the 2030s

NASA officials also have an eye for what happens after 2030. The agency has partnered with commercial teams led by Axiom, Blue Origin, and Voyager Technologies on plans for privately owned space stations in low-Earth orbit to replace some of the research capabilities lost with the end of the ISS program.

The conventional wisdom goes that these new orbiting outposts will be less expensive to operate than the ISS, making them more attractive to commercial clients, ranging from pharmaceutical research and in-space manufacturing firms to thrill-seeking private space tourists. NASA, which seeks to maintain a human presence in low-Earth orbit as it turns toward the Moon and Mars, will initially be an anchor customer until the space stations build up more commercial demand.

These new space stations will need a way to receive cargo and visitors. NASA wants to preserve the existing commercial cargo and crew transport systems so they’re available for commercial space stations in the 2030s. Stich said NASA is looking at transferring the rights for any of the agency’s commercial crew missions that don’t fly to ISS over to the commercial space stations. Among NASA’s two commercial crew providers, it currently looks more likely that Boeing’s contract will have unused capacity than SpaceX’s when the ISS program ends.

This is a sweetener NASA could offer to its stable of private space station developers as they face other hurdles in getting their hardware off the ground. It’s unclear whether a business case exists to justify the expense of building and operating a commercial outpost in orbit or if the research and manufacturing customers that could use a private space station might find a cheaper option in robotic flying laboratories, such as those being developed by Varda Space Industries.

A rendering of Voyager’s Starlab space station. Credit: Voyager Space

NASA’s policies haven’t helped matters. Analysts say NASA’s financial support for private space station developers has lagged, and the agency’s fickle decision-making on when to retire the International Space Station has made private fundraising more difficult. It’s not a business for the faint-hearted. For example, Axiom has gone through several rounds of layoffs in the last year.

The White House’s budget request for fiscal year 2026 proposes a 25 percent cut to NASA’s overall budget, but the funding line for commercial space stations is an area marked for an increase. Still, there’s a decent chance that none of the proposed commercial outposts will be flying when the ISS crashes back to Earth. In that event, China would be the owner and operator of the only space station in orbit.

At least at first, transportation costs will be the largest expense for any company that builds and operates a privately owned space station. It costs NASA about 40 percent more each year to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the ISS than it does to operate the space station. For a smaller commercial outpost with reduced operating costs, the gap will likely be even wider.

If Boeing can right the ship with Starliner and NASA offers a few prepaid crew missions to private space station developers, the money saved could help close someone’s business case and hasten the launch of a new era in commercial spaceflight.

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

The ISS is nearing retirement, so why is NASA still gung-ho about Starliner? Read More »

Congress moves to reject bulk of White House’s proposed NASA cuts

congress, human spaceflight, NASA, nasa budget, Science, solar system, Space, space policy, space science / Beth Washington / July 16, 2025

Fewer robots, more humans

The House version of NASA’s fiscal year 2026 budget includes $9.7 billion for exploration programs, a roughly 25 percent boost over NASA’s exploration budget for 2025, and 17 percent more than the Trump administration’s request in May. The text of the House bill released publicly doesn’t include any language explicitly rejecting the White House’s plan to terminate the SLS and Orion programs after two more missions.

Instead, it directs NASA to submit a five-year budget profile for SLS, Orion, and associated ground systems to “ensure a crewed launch as early as possible.” A five-year planning budget seems to imply that the House committee wants SLS and Orion to stick around. The White House budget forecast zeros out funding for both programs after 2028.

The House also seeks to provide more than $4.1 billion for NASA’s space operations account, a slight cut from 2025 but well above the White House’s number. Space operations covers programs like the International Space Station, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, and funding for new privately owned space stations to replace the ISS.

Many of NASA’s space technology programs would also be salvaged in the House budget, which allocates $913 million for tech development, a reduction from the 2025 budget but still an increase over the Trump administration’s request.

The House bill’s cuts to science and space technology, though more modest than those proposed by the White House, would still likely result in cancellations and delays for some of NASA’s robotic space missions.

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the House subcommittee responsible for writing NASA’s budget, called out the bill’s cut to the agency’s science portfolio.

“As other countries are racing forward in space exploration and climate science, this bill would cause the US to fall behind by cutting NASA’s account by over $1.3 billion,” she said Tuesday.

Lawmakers reported the Senate spending bill to the full Senate Appropriations Committee last week by voice vote. Members of the House subcommittee advanced their bill to the full committee Tuesday afternoon by a vote of 9-6.

The budget bills will next be sent to the full appropriations committees of each chamber for a vote and an opportunity for amendments, before moving on to the floor for a vote by all members.

It’s still early in the annual appropriations process, and a final budget bill is likely months away from passing both houses of Congress and heading to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. There’s no guarantee Trump will sign any congressional budget bill, or that Congress will finish the appropriations process before this year’s budget runs out on September 30.

Congress moves to reject bulk of White House’s proposed NASA cuts Read More »

We saw the heart of Pluto 10 years ago—it’ll be a long wait to see the rest

Kuiper belt, NASA, New Horizons, planetary science, Pluto, Science, solar system, Space / Kelly Newman / July 15, 2025

A 50-year wait for a second mission wouldn’t be surprising. Just ask Uranus and Neptune.

Four images from New Horizons’ Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) were combined with color data from the spacecraft’s Ralph instrument to create this enhanced color global view of Pluto. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University/SWRI

NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft got a fleeting glimpse of Pluto 10 years ago, revealing a distant world with a picturesque landscape that, paradoxically, appears to be refreshing itself in the cold depths of our Solar System.

The mission answered numerous questions about Pluto that have lingered since its discovery by astronomer Clyde Tombaugh in 1930. As is often the case with planetary exploration, the results from New Horizons’ flyby of Pluto on July 14, 2015, posed countless more questions. First and foremost, how did such a dynamic world come to be so far from the Sun?

For at least the next few decades, the only resources available for scientists to try to answer these questions will be either the New Horizons mission’s archive of more than 50 gigabits of data recorded during the flyby, or observations from billions of miles away with powerful telescopes on the ground or space-based observatories like Hubble and James Webb.

That fact is becoming abundantly clear. Ten years after the New Horizons encounter, there are no missions on the books to go back to Pluto and no real prospects for one.

A mission spanning generations

In normal times, with a stable NASA budget, scientists might get a chance to start developing another Pluto mission in perhaps 10 or 20 years, after higher-priority missions like Mars Sample Return, a spacecraft to orbit Uranus, and a probe to orbit and land on Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus. In that scenario, perhaps a new mission could reach Pluto and enter orbit before the end of the 2050s.

But these aren’t normal times. The Trump administration has proposed cutting NASA’s science budget in half, jeopardizing not only future missions to explore the Solar System but also threatening to shut down numerous operating spacecraft, including New Horizons itself as it speeds through an uncharted section of the Kuiper Belt toward interstellar space.

The proposed cuts are sapping morale within NASA and the broader space science community. If implemented, the budget reductions would affect more than NASA’s actual missions. They would also slash NASA’s funding available for research, eliminating grants that could pay for scientists to analyze existing data stored in the New Horizons archive or telescopic observations to peer at Pluto from afar.

The White House maintains funding for newly launched missions like Europa Clipper and an exciting mission called Dragonfly to soar through the skies of Saturn’s moon Titan. Instead, the Trump administration’s proposed budget, which still must be approved by Congress, suggests a reluctance to fund new missions exploring anything beyond the Moon or Mars, where NASA would focus efforts on human exploration and bankroll an assortment of commercial projects.

NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft undergoing launch preparations at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, in September 2005. Credit: NASA

In this environment, it’s difficult to imagine the development of a new Pluto mission to begin any time in the next 20 years. Even if Congress or a future presidential administration restores NASA’s planetary science budget, a Pluto mission wouldn’t be near the top of the agency’s to-do list.

The National Academies’ most recent decadal survey prioritized Mars Sample Return, a Uranus orbiter, and an Enceladus “Orbilander” mission in their recommendations to NASA’s planetary science program through 2032. None of these missions has a realistic chance to launch by 2032, and it seems more likely than not that none of them will be in any kind of advanced stage of development by then.

The panel of scientists participating in the latest decadal survey—released in 2022—determined that a second mission to Pluto did not merit a technical risk and cost evaluation report, meaning it wasn’t even shortlisted for consideration as a science priority for NASA.

There’s a broad consensus in the scientific community that a follow-up mission to Pluto should be an orbiter, and not a second flyby. New Horizons zipped by Pluto at a relative velocity of nearly 31,000 mph (14 kilometers per second), flying as close as 7,750 miles (12,500 kilometers).

At that range and velocity, the spacecraft’s best camera was close enough to resolve something the size of a football field for less than an hour. Pluto was there, then it was gone. New Horizons only glimpsed half of Pluto at decent resolution, but what it saw revealed a heart-shaped sheet of frozen nitrogen and methane with scattered mountains of water ice, all floating on what scientists believe is likely a buried ocean of liquid water.

Pluto must harbor a wellspring of internal heat to keep from freezing solid, something researchers didn’t anticipate before the arrival of New Horizons.

New Horizons revealed Pluto as a mysterious world with icy mountains and very smooth plains. Credit: NASA

So, what is Pluto’s ocean like? How thick are Pluto’s ice sheets? Are any of Pluto’s suspected cryovolcanoes still active today? And, what secrets are hidden on the other half of Pluto?

These questions, and more, could be answered by an orbiter. Some of the scientists who worked on New Horizons have developed an outline for a conceptual mission to orbit Pluto. This mission, named Persephone for the wife of Pluto in classical mythology, hasn’t been submitted to NASA as a real proposal, but it’s worth illustrating the difficulties in not just reaching Pluto, but maneuvering into orbit around a dwarf planet so far from the Earth.

Nuclear is the answer

The initial outline for Persephone released in 2020 called for a launch in 2031 on NASA’s Space Launch System Block 2 rocket with an added Centaur kick stage. Again, this isn’t a realistic timeline for such an ambitious mission, and the rocket selected for this concept doesn’t exist. But if you assume Persephone could launch on a souped-up super heavy-lift SLS rocket in 2031, it would take more than 27 years for the spacecraft to reach Pluto before sliding into orbit in 2058.

Another concept study led by Alan Stern, also the principal investigator on the New Horizons mission, shows how a future Pluto orbiter could reach its destination by the late 2050s, assuming a launch on an SLS rocket around 2030. Stern’s concept, called the Gold Standard, would reserve enough propellant to leave Pluto and go on to fly by another more distant object.

Persephone and Gold Standard both assume a Pluto-bound spacecraft can get a gravitational boost from Jupiter. But Jupiter moves out of alignment from 2032 until the early 2040s, adding a decade or more to the travel time for any mission leaving Earth in those years.

It took nine years for New Horizons to make the trip from Earth to Pluto, but the spacecraft was significantly smaller than an orbiter would need to be. That’s because an orbiter has to carry enough power and fuel to slow down on approach to Pluto, allowing the dwarf planet’s weak gravity to capture it into orbit. A spacecraft traveling too fast, without enough fuel, would zoom past Pluto just like New Horizons.

The Persephone concept would use five nuclear radioisotope power generators and conventional electric thrusters, putting it within reach of existing technology. A 2020 white paper authored by John Casani, a longtime project manager at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who died last month, showed the long-term promise of next-generation nuclear electric propulsion.

A relatively modest 10-kilowatt nuclear reactor to power electric thrusters would reduce the flight time to Pluto by 25 to 30 percent, while also providing enough electricity to power a radio transmitter to send science data back to Earth at a rate four times faster, according to the mission study report on the Persephone concept.

However, nuclear electric propulsion technologies are still early in the development phase, and Trump’s budget proposal also eliminates any funding for nuclear rocket research.

A concept for a nuclear electric propulsion system to power a spacecraft toward the outer Solar System. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

A rocket like SpaceX’s Starship might eventually be capable of accelerating a probe into the outer Solar System, but detailed studies of Starship’s potential for a Pluto mission haven’t been published yet. A Starship-launched Pluto probe would have its own unique challenges, and it’s unclear whether it would have any advantages over nuclear electric propulsion.

How much would all of this cost? It’s anyone’s guess at this point. Scientists estimated the Persephone concept would cost $3 billion, excluding launch costs, which might cost $1 billion or more if a Pluto mission requires a bespoke launch solution. Development of a nuclear electric propulsion system would almost certainly cost billions of dollars, too.

All of this suggests 50 years or more might elapse between the first and second explorations of Pluto. That is in line with the span of time between the first flybys of Uranus and Neptune by NASA’s Voyager spacecraft in 1986 and 1989, and the earliest possible timeline for a mission to revisit those two ice giants.

So, it’s no surprise scientists are girding for a long wait—and perhaps taking a renewed interest in their own life expectancies—until they get a second look at one of the most seductive worlds in our Solar System.

We saw the heart of Pluto 10 years ago—it’ll be a long wait to see the rest Read More »

“It’s a heist”: Senator calls out Texas for trying to steal shuttle from Smithsonian

Bring the Space Shutle Home Act, Chantilly, Dick Durbin, discovery, John Corbyn, NASA, National Air and Space Museum, One Big Beautiful Bill, senators, Smithsonian, Space, space center houston, Space exploration, space history, Space shuttle, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, ted cruz, texas, Virginia / Shannon Garcia / July 11, 2025

Citing research by NASA and the Smithsonian, Durbin said that the total was closer to $305 million and that did not include the estimated $178 million needed to build a facility to house and display Discovery once in Houston.

Furthermore, it was unclear if Congress even has the right to remove an artifact, let alone a space shuttle, from the Smithsonian’s collection. The Washington, DC, institution, which serves as a trust instrumentality of the US, maintains that it owns Discovery. The paperwork signed by NASA in 2012 transferred “all rights, interest, title, and ownership” for the spacecraft to the Smithsonian.

“This will be the first time ever in the history of the Smithsonian someone has taken one of their displays and forcibly taken possession of it. What are we doing here? They don’t have the right in Texas to claim this,” said Durbin.

Houston was not the only city to miss out on displaying a retired space shuttle. In 2011, Durbin and fellow Illinois Senator Mark Kirk appealed to NASA to exhibit one of the winged spacecraft at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. The agency ultimately decided to award the shuttles to the National Air and Space Museum, the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida, and the California Science Center in Los Angeles.

Houston, we have a problem

A prototype orbiter that was exhibited where Discovery is now was transferred to the Intrepid Museum in New York City.

To be able to bring up his points at Thursday’s hearing, Durbin introduced the “Houston, We Have a Problem” amendment to “prohibit the use of funds to transfer a decommissioned space shuttle from one location to another location.”

He then withdrew the amendment after having voiced his objections.

“I think we’re dealing with something called waste. Eighty-five million dollars worth of waste. I know that this is a controversial issue, and I know that there are other agencies, Smithsonian, NASA, and others that are interested in this issue; I’m going to withdraw this amendment, but I’m going to ask my colleagues to be honest about it,” said Durbin. “I hope that we think about this long and hard.”

“It’s a heist”: Senator calls out Texas for trying to steal shuttle from Smithsonian Read More »

RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions

doe, health, NASA, Nature, NIH, USDA / Mike M. / July 2, 2025

The move comes after HHS Secretary and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on a May 27 podcast that prestigious medical journals are “corrupt.”

“We’re probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they’re all corrupt,” he said. He accused the journals collectively of being a “vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda.” He went on to say that “unless these journals change dramatically,” the federal government would “stop NIH scientists from publishing there” and create “in-house” journals instead.

Kennedy’s criticism largely stems from his belief that modern medicine and mainstream science are part of a global conspiracy to generate pharmaceutical profits. Kennedy is a germ-theory denier who believes people can maintain their health not by relying on evidence-based medicine, such as vaccines, but by clean living and eating—a loose concept called “terrain theory.”

Access to top scientific and medical journals is essential for federal scientists to keep up to date with their fields and publicize high-impact results. One NIH employee added to Nature news that it “suppresses our scientific freedom, to pursue information where it is present.”

RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions Read More »

Ars reflects on Apollo 13 turning 30

Apollo13, culture, Entertainment, film anniversaries, films, NASA, Science, space history, Staff source, Universal Pictures / 9u50fv / June 29, 2025

Ron Howard’s 1995 love letter to NASA’s Apollo program takes a few historical liberties but it still inspires awe.

Credit: Universal Pictures

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 1995 Oscar-winning film, Apollo 13, director Ron Howard’s masterful love letter to NASA’s Apollo program in general and the eponymous space mission in particular. So we’re taking the opportunity to revisit this riveting homage to American science, ingenuity, and daring.

(Spoilers below.)

Apollo 13 is a fictional retelling of the aborted 1970 lunar mission that became a “successful failure” for NASA because all three astronauts made it back to Earth alive against some pretty steep odds. The film opens with astronaut Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) hosting a watch party in July 1969 for Neil Armstrong’s historic first walk on the Moon. He is slated to command the Apollo 14 mission, and is ecstatic when he and his crew—Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise) and Fred Haise (Bill Paxton)—are bumped to Apollo 13 instead. His wife, Marilyn (Kathleen Quinlan) is more superstitious and hence less thrilled: “It had to be 13.” To which her pragmatic husband replies, “It comes after 12.”

A few days before launch, Mattingly is grounded because he was exposed to the measles and replaced with backup Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon), who is the only one happy about the situation. But Lovell and Haise rebound from the disappointment and the launch goes off without a hitch. The public, alas, just isn’t interested in what they think has become routine. But the mission is about to become anything but that.

During a maintenance task to stir the oxygen tanks, an electrical short causes one of the tanks to explode, with the other rapidly venting its oxygen into space. The crew has less than an hour to evacuate the command module Odyssey into the lunar module Aquarius, using it as a lifeboat. There is no longer any chance of landing on the Moon; the new mission is to keep the astronauts alive long enough to figure out how to bring them safely home. That means overcoming interpersonal tensions, freezing conditions, dwindling rations, and unhealthy CO2 levels, among other challenges, as well as taking on a pulse-pounding manual course correction with no navigational computer. (Spoiler alert: they make it!)

The Apollo 13 crew: Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon), and Fred Haise (Bill Paxton). Universal Pictures

The film is loosely based on Lovell’s 1994 memoir, Lost Moon. While Lovell initially hoped Kevin Costner would portray him, Howard ultimately cast Hanks in the role, in part because the latter already had extensive knowledge of the Apollo program and space history. Hanks, Paxton, and Bacon all went to US Space Camp to prepare for their roles, participating in astronaut training exercises and flying on the infamous “Vomit Comet” (the KC-135) to experience simulated weightlessness. Howard ultimately shot most of the weightless scenes aboard the KC-135 since recreating those conditions on a soundstage and with CGI would have been prohibitively expensive.

In fact, Howard didn’t rely on archival mission footage at all, insisting on shooting his own footage. That meant constructing realistic spacecraft interiors—incorporating some original Apollo materials—and reproducing exactly the pressure suits worn by astronauts. (The actors, once locked in, breathed air pumped into the suits just like the original Apollo astronauts.) The Mission Control set at Universal Studios was so realistic that one NASA consultant kept looking for the elevator when he left each day, only to remember he was on a movie set.

The launch sequence was filmed using miniature models augmented with digital image stitching. Ditto for the splashdown, in which actual parachutes and a prop capsule were tossed out of a helicopter to shoot the scene. Only the exhaust from the attitude control thrusters was generated with CGI. A failed attempt at using CGI for the in-space urine dump was scrapped in favor of just spraying droplets from an Evian bottle.

It all paid off in the end. Apollo 13 premiered on June 30, 1995, to critical acclaim and racked up over $355 million globally at the box office. It was nominated for nine Oscars and won two—Best Film Editing and Best Sound—although it lost Best Picture to another Hanks film, Forrest Gump. (We can’t quite believe it either.) And the film has stood the test of time, capturing the essence of America’s early space program for posterity. A few Ars staffers shared their thoughts on Apollo 13‘s enduring legacy.

Failure should be an option

White Team Flight Director Gene Krantz (Ed Harris) insists, “We are not losing those men!” Universal Pictures

The tagline for Apollo 13 is “Failure is not an option.” But this is a bit of Hollywood magic. It turns out that NASA Flight Director Gene Kranz never said the line during the actual Apollo 13 mission to the Moon, or the subsequent efforts to save the crew.

Instead the line was conceived after the script writers, Al Reinert and Bill Broyles, interviewed Kranz at his home Texas, south of Johnson Space Center. They were so taken by the notion it became synonymous with the film and with Kranz himself, one of NASA most storied flight directors. He has lived with the line in the decades since, and embraced it by using it as the title of his autobiography. Ever since then the public has associated the idea that NASA would never accept failure with the space agency.

Of course it is great that the public believes so strongly in NASA. But this also turned out to be a millstone around the agency’s neck. This is not really the fault of Kranz. However, as the public became unaccepting of failure, so did Congress, and NASA’s large programs became intolerant of failure. This is one of the reasons why the timeline and cost of NASA’s rockets and spacecraft and interplanetary missions have ballooned. There are so many people looking for things that could possibly go wrong, the people actually trying to build hardware and fly missions are swamped by requirements.

This is why companies like SpaceX, with an iterative design methodology that accepts some level of failure in order to go more quickly, have thrived. They have moved faster, and at significantly less cost, than the government. I asked Kranz about this a few years ago, the idea that NASA (and its Congressional paymasters) should probably be a little more tolerant of failure.

“Space involves risk, and I think that’s the one thing about Elon Musk and all the various space entrepreneurs: they’re willing to risk their future in order to accomplish the objective that they have decided on,” he told me. “I think we as a nation have to learn that, as an important part of this, to step forward and accept risk.”

—Eric Berger

The perfect gateway drug

“Gentlemen, that’s not good enough.” Universal Pictures

Technically I am a child of the ’60s (early Gen-X), but I was far too young to grasp the significance of the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, or just how impressive NASA’s achievement really was. The adults made us sit around the TV in our PJs and seemed very excited about the grainy picture. That’s it. That’s all I remember. My conscious knowledge of space exploration was more influenced by Star Wars and the 1986 Challenger explosion. So going to see Apollo 13 in 1995 as a young science writer was a revelation. I walked out of the theater practically vibrating with excitement, turned to my friends and exclaimed, “Oh my god, we went to the Moon in a souped-up Buick!”

Apollo 13 makes space exploration visceral, makes the audience feel like they are right there in the capsule with the crew battling the odds to get back home. It perfectly conveys the huge risks and stalwart courage of everyone involved in the face of unimaginable pressure. Nerds are the heroes and physics and math are critical: I love the scene where Lovell has to calculate gimbal conversions by hand and asks mission control to check his work. A line of men with slide rules feverishly make their own calculations and one-by-one give the thumbs up.

Then there’s the pragmatic ingenuity of the engineers who had to come up with a way to fit square air filters into a round hole using nothing but items already onboard the spacecraft. There’s a reason I rewatch Apollo 13 every couple of years when I’m in the mood for a “let’s work the problem, people” pick-me-up. (Shoutout to Lovell’s mother, Blanche—played by Howard’s mother, the late Jean Speegle Howard—and her classic line: “If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could land it.”)

Naturally, Howard had to sacrifice some historical accuracy in the name of artistic license, sparking the inevitable disgruntled griping among hardcore space nerds. For instance, the mission’s original commander, Alan Shepard, wasn’t grounded because of an ear infection but by Meniere’s disease (an inner ear issue that can cause dizziness). Mission control didn’t order the shutdown of the fuel cells; they were already dead. Swigert and Haise didn’t really argue about who was to blame for the accident. And the film ignores the critical role of Flight Director Glynn Lunney and his Black Team (among others), choosing to focus on Kranz’s White Team to keep the story streamlined.

Look, I get it: nobody wants to see a topic they’re passionate about misrepresented in a movie. But there’s no question that thanks to Howard’s narrative instincts, the film continues to resonate with the general public in ways that a by-the-book docudrama obsessing over the tiniest technical details never could.

In the grand scheme of things, that matters far more than whether Lovell really said, “Houston, we have a problem” in those exact words. If you want the public to support space exploration and—crucially—for Congress to fund it, you need to spark their imaginations and invite them to share in the dream. Apollo 13 is the perfect gateway drug for future space fans, who might find themselves also vibrating with excitement afterward, so inspired by the film that they decide they want to learn more—say, by watching the 12-part Emmy-winning docuseries From the Earth to the Moon that Howard and Hanks co-produced (which is historically accurate). And who knows? They might even decide they want to be space explorers themselves one day.

—Jennifer Ouellette

A common touchstone

Lift-off! Universal Pictures

My relationship with Apollo 13 is somewhat different from most folks: I volunteer as a docent at Space Center Houston, the visitor’s center for Houston’s Johnson Space Center. Specifically, I’m an interpretive guide for the center’s Saturn V exhibit—the only one of the three remaining Saturn V exhibits in the world composed of tip-to-tip of flight stages.

I reference Apollo 13 constantly during guide shifts because it’s a common touchstone that I can count on most folks visiting SCH to have seen, and it visually explicates so many of the more technical aspects of the Apollo program. If I’m explaining that the near-avalanche of white stuff one sees falling off of a Saturn V at launch is actually ice (the rocket’s cryogenic fuels are fantastically cold, and the launch pad at Florida is usually warm and humid, so ice forms on the rocket’s outer skin over the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks as it sits on the pad), I reference the launch scene in the movie. If I’m explaining the transposition and docking maneuver by which the Apollo command module docked with and extracted the lunar module from its little garage, I reference the T&D scene in the movie.

Questions about breathing and carbon dioxide? Movie scene. The well-known tension between the astronaut corps and the flight surgeons? Movie scene. And the list goes on. It’s the most amazing reference material I could possibly have.

The film has its detractors, of course, and most geeks wanting to take issue with it will fire shots at the film’s historical accuracy. (Apollo EECOM Sy Liebergot, played in the film by director Ron Howard’s brother Clint, griped once to me that the movie had the audacity to depict the Apollo spacecraft’s trans-lunar injection burn as occurring with the Moon visible in the windows instead of on the far side of the planet—an apparently unforgivable astronavigational sin.) The movie amps up the drama in all respects, adds dialog no astronaut or controller would say, mashes people together into composite characters, compresses or expands the timelines of many of the events in the mission, shows many of those same events happening out of order, and puts people (like Gary Sinise’s Ken Mattingly) in places and roles they were never in.

All these things are true—but they’re also necessary additions in order to get one’s hands around a messy historical event (an event, like all events, that was basically just a whole bunch of stuff all happening at the same time) and fit it into a three-act structure that preserves the important things and that non-technical non-astronaut audiences can follow and understand. And the film succeeds brilliantly, telling a tale that both honors the historicity and technical details of the mission, and that also continues to function as a powerful interpretive tool that teaches people even 35 years after release.

Is every button pressed in the right way? No. Does it bug the crap out of me every time Kevin Bacon answers Tom Hanks’ “How’s the alignment?” question by nonsensically saying “GDC align” and pressing the GDC align button, which is neither what Lovell was asking nor the proper procedure to get the answer Lovell was looking for? Yes. But’s also pure competence porn—an amazing love letter to the space program and the 400,000 men and women who put humans on the Moon.

And like Lovell says: “It’s not a miracle. We just decided to go.”

—Lee Hutchinson

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

Ars reflects on Apollo 13 turning 30 Read More »

Rocket Report: SpaceX’s dustup on the border; Northrop has a nozzle problem

launch, NASA, rocket report, Science, Space, spacex / Shannon Garcia / June 27, 2025

NASA has finally test-fired the first of its new $100 million SLS rocket engines.

Backdropped by an offshore thunderstorm, a SpaceX Falcon 9 booster stands on its landing pad at Cape Canaveral after returning to Earth from a mission launching four astronauts to the International Space Station early Wednesday. Credit: SpaceX

Welcome to Edition 7.50 of the Rocket Report! We’re nearly halfway through the year, and it seems like a good time to look back on the past six months. What has been most surprising to me in the world of rockets? First, I didn’t expect SpaceX to have this much trouble with Starship Version 2. Growing pains are normal for new rockets, but I expected the next big hurdles for SpaceX to clear with Starship to be catching the ship from orbit and orbital refueling, not completing a successful launch. The state of Blue Origin’s New Glenn program is a little surprising to me. New Glenn’s first launch in January went remarkably well, beating the odds for a new rocket. Now, production delays are pushing back the next New Glenn flights. The flight of Honda’s reusable rocket hopper also came out of nowhere a few weeks ago.

As always, we welcome reader submissions. If you don’t want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets, as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

Isar raises 150 million euros. German space startup Isar Aerospace has obtained 150 million euros ($175 million) in funding from an American investment company, Reuters reports. The company, which specializes in satellite launch services, signed an agreement for a convertible bond with Eldridge Industries, it said. Isar says it will use the funding to expand its launch service offerings. Isar’s main product is the Spectrum rocket, a two-stage vehicle designed to loft up to a metric ton (2,200 pounds) of payload mass to low-Earth orbit. Spectrum flew for the first time in March, but it failed moments after liftoff and fell back to the ground near its launch pad. Still, Isar became the first in a new crop of European launch startups to launch a rocket theoretically capable of reaching orbit.

Flush with cash … Isar is leading in another metric, too. The Munich-based company has now raised more than 550 million euros ($642 million) from venture capital investors and government-backed funds. This far exceeds the fundraising achievements of any other European launch startup. But the money will only go so far before Isar must prove it can successfully launch a rocket into orbit. Company officials have said they aim to launch the second Spectrum rocket before the end of this year. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger’s and Stephen Clark’s reporting on all things space is to sign up for our newsletter. We’ll collect their stories and deliver them straight to your inbox.

Sign Me Up!

Rocket Lab aiming for record turnaround. Rocket Lab demonstrated a notable degree of flexibility this week. Two light-class Electron rockets were nearing launch readiness at the company’s privately owned spaceport in New Zealand, but one of the missions encountered a technical problem, and Rocket Lab scrubbed a launch attempt Tuesday. The spaceport has two launch pads next to one another, so while technicians worked to fix that problem, Rocket Lab slotted in another Electron rocket to lift off from the pad next door. That mission, carrying a quartet of small commercial signals intelligence satellites for HawkEye 360, successfully launched Thursday.

Giving it another go … A couple of hours after that launch, Rocket Lab announced it was ready to try again with the mission it had grounded earlier in the week. “Can’t get enough of Electron missions? How about another one tomorrow? With our 67th mission complete, we’ve scheduled our next launch from LC-1 in less than 48 hours—Electron’s fastest turnaround from the same launch site yet!” Rocket Lab hasn’t disclosed what satellite is flying on this mission, citing the customer’s preference to remain anonymous for now.

You guessed it! Baguette One will launch from France. French rocket builder HyPrSpace will launch its Baguette One demonstrator from a missile testing site in mainland France, after signing an agreement with the country’s defense procurement agency, European Spaceflight reports. HyPrSpace was founded in 2019 to begin designing an orbital-class rocket named Orbital Baguette 1 (OB-1). The Baguette One vehicle is a subscale, single-stage suborbital demonstrator to prove out technologies for the larger satellite launcher, mainly its hybrid propulsion system.

Sovereign launch … HyPrSpace’s Baguette One will stand roughly 10 meters (30 feet) tall and will be capable of carrying payloads of up to 300 kilograms (660 pounds) to suborbital space. It is scheduled to launch next year from a French missile testing site in the south of France. “Gaining access to this dual-use launch pad in mainland France is a major achievement after many years of work on our hybrid propulsion technology,” said Sylvain Bataillard, director general of HyPrSpace. “It’s a unique opportunity for HyPrSpace and marks a decisive turning point. We’re eager to launch Baguette One and to play a key role in building a more sovereign, more sustainable, and boldly innovative European dual-use space industry.” (submitted by EllPeaTea)

Firefly moves closer to launching from Sweden. An agreement between the United States and Sweden brings Firefly Aerospace one step closer to launching its Alpha rocket from a Swedish spaceport, Space News reports. The two countries signed a technology safeguards agreement (TSA) at a June 20 ceremony at the Swedish embassy in Washington, DC. The TSA allows the export of American rockets to Sweden for launches there, putting in place measures to protect launch vehicle technology.

A special relationship … The US government has signed launch-related safeguard agreements with only a handful of countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and now Sweden. Rocket exports are subject to strict controls because of the potential military applications of that technology. Firefly currently launches its Alpha rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, and is building a launch site at Wallops Island, Virginia. Firefly also has a lease for a launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, although the company is prioritizing other sites. Then, last year, Firefly announced an agreement with the Swedish Space Corporation to launch Alpha from Esrange Space Center as soon as 2026. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

Amazon is running strong out of the gate. For the second time in two months, United Launch Alliance sent a batch of 27 broadband Internet satellites into orbit for Amazon on Monday morning, Ars reports. This was the second launch of a full load of operational satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper, a network envisioned to become a competitor to SpaceX’s Starlink. Just like the last flight on April 28, an Atlas V rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, and delivered Amazon’s satellites into an on-target orbit roughly 280 miles (450 kilometers) above Earth.

Time to put up or shut up … After lengthy production delays at Amazon’s satellite factory, the retail giant is finally churning out Kuiper satellites at scale. Amazon has already shipped the third batch of Kuiper satellites to Florida to prepare for launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket next month. ULA won the lion’s share of Amazon’s multibillion-dollar launch contract in 2022, committing to up to 38 Vulcan launches for Kuiper and nine Atlas V flights. Three of those Atlas Vs have now launched. Amazon also reserved 18 launches on Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket, and at least 12 on Blue Origin’s New Glenn. Vulcan, Ariane 6, and New Glenn have only flown one or two times, and Amazon is asking them to quickly ramp up their cadence to deliver 3,232 Kuiper satellites to orbit in the next few years. The handful of Falcon 9s and Atlas Vs that Amazon has on contract are the only rockets in the bunch with a proven track record. With Kuiper satellites now regularly shipping out of the factory, any blame for future delays may shift from Amazon to the relatively unproven rockets it has chosen to launch them.

Falcon 9 launches with four commercial astronauts. Retired astronaut Peggy Whitson, America’s most experienced space flier, and three rookie crewmates from India, Poland, and Hungary blasted off on a privately financed flight to the International Space Station early Wednesday, CBS News reports. This is the fourth non-government mission mounted by Houston-based Axiom Space. The four commercial astronauts rocketed into orbit on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launcher from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and their Dragon capsule docked at the space station Thursday to kick off a two-week stay.

A brand-new Dragon … The Crew Dragon spacecraft flown on this mission, serial number C213, is the fifth and final addition to SpaceX’s fleet of astronaut ferry ships built for NASA trips to the space station and for privately funded commercial missions to low-Earth orbit. Moments after reaching orbit Wednesday, Whitson revealed the name of the new spacecraft: Crew Dragon Grace. “We had an incredible ride uphill, and now we’d like to set our course for the International Space Station aboard the newest member of the Dragon fleet, our spacecraft named Grace. … Grace reminds us that spaceflight is not just a feat of engineering, but an act of goodwill to the benefit of every human everywhere.”

How soon until Ariane 6 is flying regularly? It’ll take several years for Arianespace to ramp up the launch cadence of Europe’s new Ariane 6 rocket, Space News reports. David Cavaillolès, chief executive of Arianespace, addressed questions at the Paris Air Show about how quickly Arianespace can reach its target of launching 10 Ariane 6 rockets per year. “We need to go to 10 launches per year for Ariane 6 as soon as possible,” he said. “It’s twice as more as for Ariane 5, so it’s a big industrial change.” Two Ariane 6 rockets have launched so far, and a third mission is on track to lift off in August. Arianespace’s CEO reiterated earlier plans to conduct four more Ariane 6 launches through the end of this year, including the first flight of the more powerful Ariane 64 variant with four solid rocket boosters.

Not a heavy lift … Arianespace’s target flight rate of 10 Ariane 6 rockets per year is modest compared to other established companies with similarly sized launch vehicles. United Launch Alliance is seeking to launch as many as 25 Vulcan rockets per year. Blue Origin’s New Glenn is designed to eventually fly often, although the company hasn’t released a target launch cadence. SpaceX, meanwhile, aims to launch up to 170 Falcon 9 rockets this year. But European governments are perhaps more committed than ever to maintaining a sovereign launch capability for the continent, so Ariane 6 isn’t going away. Arianespace has sold more than 30 Ariane 6 launches, primarily to European institutional customers and Amazon.

SLS booster blows its nozzle. NASA and Northrop Grumman test-fired a new solid rocket booster in Utah on Thursday, and it didn’t go exactly according to plan, Ars reports. This booster features a new design that NASA would use to power Space Launch System rockets, beginning with the ninth mission, or Artemis IX. The motor tested on Thursday isn’t flight-worthy. It’s a test unit that engineers will use to learn about the rocket’s performance. It turns out they did learn something, but perhaps not what they wanted. About 1 minute and 40 seconds into the booster’s burn, a fiery plume emerged from the motor’s structure just above its nozzle. Moments later, the nozzle violently disintegrated. The booster kept firing until it ran out of pre-packed solid propellant.

A questionable future … NASA’s Space Launch System appears to have a finite shelf life. The Trump administration wants to cancel it after just three launches, while the preliminary text of a bill making its way through Congress would extend it to five flights. But chances are low the Space Launch System will make it to nine flights, and if it does, it’s questionable if it would reach that point before 2040. The SLS rocket is a core piece of NASA’s plan to return US astronauts to the Moon under the Artemis program, but the White House seeks to cancel the program in favor of cheaper commercial alternatives.

NASA conducts a low-key RS-25 engine test. The booster ground test on Thursday was the second time in less than a week that NASA test-fired new propulsion hardware for the Space Launch System. Last Friday, June 20, NASA ignited a new RS-25 engine on a test stand at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The hydrogen-fueled engine is the first of its kind to be manufactured since the end of the space shuttle program. This particular RS-25 engine is assigned to power the fifth launch of the SLS rocket, a mission known as Artemis V, that may end up never flying. While NASA typically livestreams engine tests at Stennis, the agency didn’t publicize this event ahead of time.

It has been 10 years … The SLS rocket was designed to recycle leftover parts from the space shuttle program, but NASA will run out of RS-25 engines after the rocket’s fourth flight and will exhaust its inventory of solid rocket booster casings after the eighth flight. Recognizing that shuttle-era parts will eventually run out, NASA signed a contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne (now L3Harris) to set the stage for the production of new RS-25 engines in 2015. NASA later ordered an initial batch of six RS-25 engines from Aerojet, then added 18 more to the order in 2020, at a price of about $100 million per engine. Finally, a brand-new flight-worthy RS-25 engine has fired up on a test stand. If the Trump administration gets its way, these engines will never fly. Maybe that’s fine, but after so long with so much taxpayer investment, last week’s test milestone is worth publicizing, if not celebrating.

SpaceX finds itself in a dustup on the border. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico is considering taking legal action after one of SpaceX’s giant Starship rockets disintegrated in a giant fireball earlier this month as it was being fueled for a test-firing of its engines, The New York Times reports. No one was injured in the explosion, which rained debris on the beaches of the northern Mexican state of Tamaulipas. The conflagration occurred at a test site SpaceX operates a few miles away from the Starship launch pad. This test facility is located next to the Rio Grande River, just a few hundred feet from Mexico. The power of the blast sent wreckage flying across the river into Mexican territory.

Collision course …“We are reviewing everything related to the launching of rockets that are very close to our border,” Sheinbaum said at a news conference Wednesday. If SpaceX violated any international laws, she added, “we will file any necessary claims.” Sheinbaum’s leftist party holds enormous sway around Mexico, and the Times reports she was responding to calls to take action against SpaceX amid a growing outcry among scientists, regional officials, and environmental activists over the impact that the company’s operations are having on Mexican ecosystems. SpaceX, on the other hand, said its efforts to recover debris from the Starship explosion have been “hindered by unauthorized parties trespassing on private property.” SpaceX said it requested assistance from the government of Mexico in the recovery and added that it offered its own resources to help with the cleanup.

Next three launches

June 28: Falcon 9 | Starlink 10-34 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 04: 26 UTC

June 28: Electron | “Symphony in the Stars” | Māhia Peninsula, New Zealand | 06: 45 UTC

June 28: H-IIA | GOSAT-GW | Tanegashima Space Center, Japan | 16: 33 UTC

Rocket Report: SpaceX’s dustup on the border; Northrop has a nozzle problem Read More »

NASA tested a new SLS booster that may never fly, and the end of it blew off

artemis, human spaceflight, L3Harris, launch, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Science, Space, space launch system / DJ Henderson / June 27, 2025

NASA didn’t want to say much about one of the tests, and the other one lost its nozzle.

An uncontained plume of exhaust appeared near the nozzle of an SLS solid rocket booster moments before its nozzle was destroyed during a test-firing Thursday. Credit: NASA

NASA’s Space Launch System appears to have a finite shelf life. The Trump administration wants to cancel it after just three launches, while the preliminary text of a bill making its way through Congress would extend it to five flights.

But chances are low the Space Launch System will make it to nine flights, and if it does, it’s questionable that it would reach that point before 2040. The SLS rocket is a core piece of NASA’s plan to return US astronauts to the Moon under the Artemis program, but the White House seeks to cancel the program in favor of cheaper commercial alternatives.

For the second time in less than a week, NASA test-fired new propulsion hardware Thursday that the agency would need to keep SLS alive. Last Friday, a new liquid-fueled RS-25 engine ignited on a test stand at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The hydrogen-fueled engine is the first of its kind to be manufactured since the end of the Space Shuttle program. This particular RS-25 engine is assigned to power the fifth flight of the SLS rocket, a mission known as Artemis V.

Then, on Thursday of this week, NASA and Northrop Grumman test-fired a new solid rocket booster in Utah. This booster features a new design that NASA would use to power SLS rockets beginning with the ninth mission, or Artemis IX. The motor tested on Thursday isn’t flight-worthy. It’s a test unit that engineers will use to gather data on the rocket’s performance.

While the engine test in Mississippi apparently went according to plan, the ground firing of the new solid rocket booster didn’t go quite as smoothly. Less than two minutes into the burn, the motor’s exhaust nozzle violently shattered into countless shards of debris. You can watch the moment in the YouTube video below.

At the start of the program nearly 15 years ago, NASA and its backers in Congress pitched the SLS rocket as the powerhouse behind a new era of deep space exploration. The Space Launch System, they said, would have the advantage of recycling old space shuttle engines and boosters, fast-tracking the new rocket’s path to the launch pad for less money than the cost of an all-new vehicle.

That didn’t pan out. Each Artemis mission costs $4.2 billion per flight, and that’s with shuttle-era engines and boosters that NASA and its contractors already have in their inventories. NASA’s 16 leftover shuttle main engines are enough for the first four SLS flights. NASA has leftover parts for eight pairs of solid rocket boosters.

It has been 10 years

Recognizing that shuttle-era parts will eventually run out, NASA signed a contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne to set the stage for the production of new RS-25 engines in 2015. NASA later ordered an initial batch of six RS-25 engines from Aerojet, then added 18 more to the order in 2020, at a price of about $100 million per engine. NASA and its contractor aim to reduce the cost to $70 million per engine, but even that figure is many times the cost of engines of comparable size and power: Blue Origin’s BE-4 and SpaceX’s Raptor.

Finally, NASA test-fired a new flight-rated RS-25 engine for the first time last week at Stennis Space Center. The agency has often provided a livestream of its engine tests at Stennis, but it didn’t offer the public any live video. And this particular test was a pretty big deal. L3Harris, which acquired Aerojet Rocketdyne in 2023, has finally reactivated the RS-25 production line after a decade and billions of dollars of funding.

In fact, NASA made no public statement about the RS-25 test until Monday, and the agency didn’t mention its assignment to fly on the Artemis V mission. If the Trump administration gets its way, the engine will never fly. Maybe that’s fine, but after so long with so much taxpayer investment, this is a milestone worth publicizing, if not celebrating.

L3Harris issued a press release Tuesday confirming the engine’s planned use on the fifth SLS mission. The engine completed a 500-second acceptance test, throttling up to 111 percent of rated thrust, demonstrating more power than engines that flew on the space shuttle or on the first SLS launch in 2022.

A new RS-25 engine, No. 20001, was installed on its test stand in Mississippi earlier this year. Credit: NASA

“This successful acceptance test shows that we’ve been able to replicate the RS-25’s performance and reliability, while incorporating modern manufacturing techniques and upgraded components such as the main combustion chamber, nozzle, and pogo accumulator assembly,” said Kristin Houston, president of space propulsion and power systems at Aerojet Rocketdyne, L3Harris. “Our propulsion technology is key to ensuring the United States leads in lunar exploration, creates a sustained presence on the Moon and does not cede this strategic frontier to other nations.”

The test-firing last Friday came a few days before the 50th anniversary of the first space shuttle main engine test at Stennis on June 24, 1975. That engine carried the serial number 0001. The new RS-25 engine is designated No. 20001.

Watch out

NASA followed last week’s low-key engine test with the test-firing of a solid-fueled booster at Northrop Grumman’s rocket test site in Promontory, Utah, on Thursday. Held in place on its side, the booster produced 3.9 million pounds of thrust, outclassing the power output of the existing boosters assigned to the first eight SLS missions.

Unlike the RS-25 firing at Stennis, NASA chose to broadcast the booster test. Everything appeared to go well until 1 minute and 40 seconds into the burn, when a fiery plume of super-hot exhaust appeared to burn through part of the booster’s structure just above the nozzle. Moments later, the nozzle disintegrated.

Solid rocket boosters can’t be turned off after ignition, and for better or worse, the motor continued firing until it ran out of propellant about 30 seconds later. The rocket sparked a fire in the hills overlooking the test stand.

This was the first test-firing of the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension (BOLE) program, which aims to develop a higher-performance solid rocket booster for SLS missions. NASA awarded Northrop Grumman a $3.2 billion contract in 2021 to produce boosters with existing shuttle parts for five SLS missions (Artemis IV-VIII), and design, develop, and test a new booster design for Artemis IX.

The boosters produce more than 75 percent of the thrust required to propel the SLS rocket off the launch pad with NASA’s crewed Orion spacecraft on top. Four RS-25 engines power the core stage, collectively generating more than 2 million pounds of thrust.

Northrop Grumman calls the new booster “the largest and most powerful segmented solid rocket motor ever built for human spaceflight.”

One of the most significant changes with the BOLE booster design is that it replaces shuttle-era steel cases with carbon-fiber composite cases. Northrop says the new cases are lighter and stronger. It also replaces the booster’s hydraulic thrust vector control steering system with an electronic system. The propellant packed inside the booster is also different, using a mix that Northrop packs inside its commercial rocket motors instead of the recipe used for the space shuttle.

Northrop Grumman has had a tough time with rocket nozzles in recent years. In 2019, a test motor for the company’s now-canceled Omega rocket lost its nozzle during a test-firing in Utah. Then, last year, a smaller Northrop-made booster flying on United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket lost its nozzle in flight. Vulcan’s guidance system and main engines corrected for the problem, and the rocket still achieved its planned orbit.

NASA tested a new SLS booster that may never fly, and the end of it blew off Read More »