Science

After Republican complaints, judicial body pulls climate advice

Climate science, evidence, judges, Law, Policy, Science / DJ Henderson / February 10, 2026

In short, the state attorneys general object to the document treating facts as facts, as there have been lawsuits that contested them. “Among other things, the Manual states that human activities have ‘unequivocally warmed the climate,’ that it is ‘extremely likely’ human influence drives ocean warming, and that researchers are ‘virtually certain’ about ocean acidification,” their letter states, “treating contested litigation positions as settled fact.” In other words, they’re arguing that, if someone is ignorant enough to start a suit based on ignorance of well-established science, then the Federal Judicial Center should join them in their ignorance.

The attorneys general also complain that the report calls the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an “authoritative science body,” citing a conservative Canadian public policy think tank that disagreed with that assessment.

These complaints were mixed in with some more potentially reasonable complaints about how the climate chapter gave specific suggestions on how to legally approach some issues and assigned significance to one or two recent studies that haven’t yet been validated by follow-on work. But the letter’s authors would not settle for revisions based on a few reasonable complaints; instead, they demand the entire chapter be removed because it accurately reflects the status of climate science.

Naturally, the Federal Judicial Center has agreed. We have confirmed that the current version of the document no longer includes a chapter on climate science, even though the foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan still mentions it. The full text of the now-deleted chapter has been posted by the RealClimate blog, though.

After Republican complaints, judicial body pulls climate advice Read More »

NIH head, still angry about COVID, wants a second scientific revolution

Bhattacharya, Features, MAHA, NIH, Pseudoscience, Science, Scientific revolution / Kelly Newman / February 9, 2026

Can we pander to MAHA, re-litigate COVID, and improve science at the same time?

Bhattacharya speaks before the Senate shortly after the MAHA event. Credit: Chip Somodevilla

At the end of January, Washington, DC, saw an extremely unusual event. The MAHA Institute, which was set up to advocate for some of the most profoundly unscientific ideas of our time, hosted leaders of the best-funded scientific organization on the planet, the National Institutes of Health. Instead of a hostile reception, however, Jay Bhattacharya, the head of the NIH, was greeted as a hero by the audience, receiving a partial standing ovation when he rose to speak.

Over the ensuing five hours, the NIH leadership and MAHA Institute moderators found many areas of common ground: anger over pandemic-era decisions, a focus on the failures of the health care system, the idea that we might eat our way out of some health issues, the sense that science had lost people’s trust, and so on. And Bhattacharya and others clearly shaped their messages to resonate with their audience.

The reason? MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) is likely to be one of the only political constituencies supporting Bhattacharya’s main project, which he called a “second scientific revolution.”

In practical terms, Bhattacharya’s plan for implementing this revolution includes some good ideas that fall far short of a revolution. But his motivation for the whole thing seems to be lingering anger over the pandemic response—something his revolution wouldn’t address. And his desire to shoehorn it into the radical disruption of scientific research pursued by the Trump administration led to all sorts of inconsistencies between his claims and reality.

If this whole narrative seems long, complicated, and confusing, it’s probably a good preview of what we can expect from the NIH over the next few years.

MAHA meets science

Despite the attendance of several senior NIH staff (including the directors of the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and Bhattacharya himself, this was clearly a MAHA event. One of the MAHA Institute’s VPs introduced the event as being about the “reclaimation” of a “discredited” NIH that had “gradually given up its integrity.”

“This was not a reclamation that involved people like Anthony Fauci,” she went on to say. “It was a reclamation of ordinary Americans, men and women who wanted our nation to excel in science rather than weaponize it.”

Things got a bit strange. Moderators from the MAHA Institute asked questions about whether COVID vaccines could cause cancer and raised the possibility of a lab leak favorably. An audience member asked why alternative treatments aren’t being researched. A speaker who proudly announced that he and his family had never received a COVID vaccine was roundly applauded. Fifteen minutes of the afternoon were devoted to a novelist seeking funding for a satirical film about the pandemic that portrayed Anthony Fauci as an egomaniacal lightweight, vaccines as a sort of placebo, and Bhattacharya as the hero of the story.

The organizers also had some idea of who might give all of this a hostile review, as reporters from Nature and Science said they were denied entry.

In short, this was not an event you’d go to if you were interested in making serious improvements to the scientific method. But that’s exactly how Bhattacharya treated it, spending the afternoon not only justifying the changes he’s made within the NIH but also arguing that we’re in need of a second scientific revolution—and he’s just the guy to bring it about.

Here’s an extensive section of his introduction to the idea:

I want to launch the second scientific revolution.

Why this grandiose vision? The first scientific revolution you have… very broadly speaking, you had high ecclesiastical authority deciding what was true or false on physical, scientific reality. And the first scientific revolution basically took… the truth-making power out of the hands of high ecclesiastical authority for deciding physical truth. We can leave aside spiritual—that is a different thing—physical truth and put it in the hands of people with telescopes. It democratized science fundamentally, it took the hands of power to decide what’s true out of the hands of authority and put it in the hands of ridiculous geniuses and regular people.

The second scientific revolution, then, is very similar. The COVID crisis, if it was anything, was the crisis of high scientific authority geting to decide not just a scientific truth like “plexiglass is going to protect us from COVID” or something, but also essentially spiritual truth. How should we treat our neighbor? Well, we treat our neighbor as a mere biohazzard.

The second scientific revolution, then, is the replication revolution. Rather than using the metrics of how many papers are we publishing as a metric for success, instead, what we’ll look at as a metric for successful scientific idea is ‘do you have an idea where other people [who are] looking at the same idea tend to find the same thing as you?’ It is not just narrow replication of one paper or one idea. It’s a really broad science. It includes, for instance, reproduction. So if two scientists disagree, that often leads to constructive ways forward in science—deciding, well there some new ideas that may come out of that disagreement

That section, which came early in his first talk of the day, hit on themes that would resurface throughout the afternoon: These people are angry about how the pandemic was handled, they’re trying to use that anger to fuel fundamental change in how science is done in the US, and their plan for change has nearly nothing to do with the issues that made them angry in the first place. In view of this, laying everything out for the MAHA crowd actually does make sense. They’re a suddenly powerful political constituency that also wants to see fundamental change in the scientific establishment, and they are completely unbothered by any lack of intellectual coherence.

Some good

The problem Bhattacharya believes he identified in the COVID response has nothing to do with replication problems. Even if better-replicated studies ultimately serve as a more effective guide to scientific truth, it would do little to change the fact that COVID restrictions were policy decisions largely made before relevant studies could even be completed, much less replicated. That’s a serious incoherence that needs to be acknowledged up front.

But that incoherence doesn’t prevent some of Bhattacharya’s ideas on replication and research priorities from being good. If they were all he was trying to accomplish, he could be a net positive.

Although he is a health economist, Bhattacharya correctly recognized something many people outside science don’t: Replication rarely comes from simply repeating the same set of experiments twice. Instead, many forms of replication happen by poking at the same underlying problem from multiple directions—looking in different populations, trying slightly different approaches, and so on. And if two approaches give different answers, it doesn’t mean that either of them is wrong. Instead, the differences could be informative, revealing something fundamental about how the system operates, as Bhattacharya noted.

He is also correct that simply changing the NIH to allow it to fund more replicative work probably won’t make a difference on its own. Instead, the culture of science needs to change so that replication can lead to publications that are valued for prestige, job security, and promotions—something that will only come slowly. He is also interested in attaching similar value to publishing negative results, like failed hypotheses or problems that people can’t address with existing technologies.

The National Institutes of Health campus. Credit: NIH

Bhattacharya also spent some time discussing the fact that NIH grants have become very risk-averse, an issue frequently discussed by scientists themselves. This aversion is largely derived from the NIH’s desire to ensure that every grant will produce some useful results—something the agency values as a way to demonstrate to Congress that its budget is being spent productively. But it leaves little space for exploratory science or experiments that may not work for technical reasons. Bhattacharya hopes to change that by converting some five-year grants to a two-plus-three structure, where the first two years fund exploratory work that must prove successful for the remaining three years to be funded.

I’m skeptical that this would be as useful as Bhattacharya hopes. Researchers who already have reason to believe the “exploratory” portion will work are likely to apply, and others may find ways to frame results from the exploratory phase as a success. Still, it seems worthwhile to try to fund some riskier research.

There was also talk of providing greater support for young researchers, another longstanding issue. Bhattacharya also wants to ensure that the advances driven by NIH-funded research are more accessible to the public and not limited to those who can afford excessively expensive treatments—again, a positive idea. But he did not share a concrete plan for addressing these issues.

All of this is to say that Bhattacharya has some ideas that may be positive for the NIH and science more generally, even if they fall far short of starting a second scientific revolution. But they’re embedded in a perspective that’s intellectually incoherent and seems to demand far more than tinkering around the edges of reproducibility. And the power to implement his ideas comes from two entities—the MAHA movement and the Trump administration—that are already driving changes that go far beyond what Bhattacharya says he wants to achieve. Those changes will certainly harm science.

Why a revolution?

There are many potential problems with deciding that pandemic-era policy decisions necessitate a scientific revolution. The most significant is that the decisions, again, were fundamentally policy decisions, meaning they were value-driven as much as fact-driven. Bhattacharya is clearly aware of that, complaining repeatedly that his concerns were moral in nature. He also claimed that “during the pandemic, what we found was that the engines of science were used for social control” and that “the lockdowns were so far at odds with human liberty.”

He may be upset that, in his view, scientists intrude upon spiritual truth and personal liberty when recommending policy, but that has nothing to do with how science operates. It’s unclear how changing how scientists prioritize reproducibility would prevent policy decisions he doesn’t like. That disconnect means that even when Bhattacharya is aiming at worthwhile scientific goals, he’s doing so accidentally rather than in a way that will produce useful results.

This is all based on a key belief of Bhattacharya and his allies: that they were right about both the science of the pandemic and the ethical implications of pandemic policies. The latter is highly debatable, and many people would disagree with them about how to navigate the trade-offs between preserving human lives and maximizing personal freedoms.

But there are also many indications that these people are wrong about the science. Bhattacharya acknowledged the existence of long COVID but doesn’t seem to have wrestled with what his preferred policy—encouraging rapid infection among low-risk individuals—might have meant for long COVID incidence, especially given that vaccines appear to reduce the risk of developing it.

Matthew Memoli, acting NIH Director prior to Bhattacharya and currently its principal deputy director, shares Bhattacharya’s view that he was right, saying, “I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but if you read the email I sent [about pandemic policy], everything I said actually has come true. It’s shocking how accurate it was.”

Yet he also proudly proclaimed, “I knew I wasn’t getting vaccinated, and my wife wasn’t, kids weren’t. Knowing what I do about RNA viruses, this is never going to work. It’s not a strategy for this kind [of virus].” And yet the benefits of COVID vaccinations for preventing serious illness have been found in study after study—it is, ironically, science that has been reproduced.

A critical aspect of the original scientific revolution was the recognition that people have to deal with facts that are incompatible with their prior beliefs. It’s probably not a great idea to have a second scientific revolution led by people who appear to be struggling with a key feature of the first.

Political or not?

Anger over Biden-era policies makes Bhattacharya and his allies natural partners of the Trump administration and is almost certainly the reason these people were placed in charge of the NIH. But it also puts them in an odd position with reality, since they have to defend policies that clearly damage science. “You hear, ‘Oh well this project’s been cut, this funding’s been cut,’” Bhattacharya said. “Well, there hasn’t been funding cut.”

A few days after Bhattacharya made this statement, Senator Bernie Sanders released data showing that many areas of research have indeed seen funding cuts.

Image of a graph with a series of colored lines, each of which shows a sharp decline at the end. — Bhattacharya’s claims that no funding had been cut appears to be at odds with the data. Credit: Office of Bernard Sanders

Bhattacharya also acknowledged that the US suffers from large health disparities between different racial groups. Yet grants funding studies of those disparities were cut during DOGE’s purge of projects it labeled as “DEI.” Bhattacharya was happy to view that funding as being ideologically motivated. But as lawsuits have revealed, nobody at the NIH ever evaluated whether that was the case; Matthew Memoli, one of the other speakers, simply forwarded on the list of grants identified by DOGE with instructions that they be canceled.

Bhattacharya also did his best to portray the NIH staff as being enthused about the changes he’s making, presenting the staff as being liberated from a formerly oppressive leadership. “The staff there, they worked for many decades under a pretty tight regime,” he told the audience. “They were controlled, and now we were trying to empower them to come to us with their ideas.”

But he is well aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by NIH workers in the Bethesda Declaration (he met with them, after all), as well as the fact that one of the leaders of that effort has since filed for whistleblower protection after being placed on administrative leave due to her advocacy.

Bhattacharya effectively denied both that people had suffered real-world consequences in their jobs and funding and that the decision to sideline them was political. Yet he repeatedly implied that he and his allies suffered due to political decisions because… people left him off some email chains.

“No one was interested in my opinion about anything,” he told the audience. “You weren’t on the emails anymore.”

And he implied this sort of “suppression” was widespread. “I’ve seen Matt [Memoli] poke his head up and say that he was against the COVID vaccine mandates—in the old NIH, that was an act of courage,” Battacharya said. “I recognized it as an act of courage because you weren’t allowed to contradict the leader for fear that you were going to get suppressed.” As he acknowledged, though, Memoli suffered no consequences for contradicting “the leader.”

Bhattacharya and his allies continue to argue that it’s a serious problem that they suffered no consequences for voicing ideas they believe were politically disfavored; yet they are perfectly comfortable with people suffering real consequences due to politics. Again, it’s not clear how this sort of intellectual incoherence can rally scientists around any cause, much less a revolution.

Does it matter?

Given that politics has left Bhattacharya in charge of the largest scientific funding agency on the planet, it may not matter how the scientific community views his project. And it’s those politics that are likely at the center of Bhattacharya’s decision to give the MAHA Institute an entire afternoon of his time. It’s founded specifically to advance the aims of his boss, Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and represents a group that has become an important component of Trump’s coalition. As such, they represent a constituency that can provide critical political support for what Bhattacharya hopes to accomplish.

Close-up of sterile single-use syringes individually wrapped in plastic and arranged in a metal tray, each containing a dose of COVID-19 vaccine. — Vaccine mandates played a big role in motivating the present leadership of the NIH. Credit: JEAN-FRANCOIS FORT

Unfortunately, they’re also very keen on profoundly unscientific ideas, such as the idea that ivermectin might treat cancer or that vaccines aren’t thoroughly tested. The speakers did their best not to say anything that might offend their hosts, in one example spending several minutes to gently tell a moderator why there’s no plausible reason to think ivermectin would treat cancer. They also made some supportive gestures where possible. Despite the continued flow of misinformation from his boss, Bhattacharya said, “It’s been really great to be part of administration to work for Secretary Kennedy for instance, whose only focus is to make America healthy.”

He also made the point of naming “vaccine injury” as a medical concern he suggested was often ignored by the scientific community, lumping it in with chronic Lyme disease and long COVID. Several of the speakers noted positive aspects of vaccines, such as their ability to prevent cancers or protect against dementia. Oddly, though, none of these mentions included the fact that vaccines are highly effective at blocking or limiting the impact of the pathogens they’re designed to protect against.

When pressed on some of MAHA’s odder ideas, NIH leadership responded with accurate statements on topics such as plausible biological mechanisms and the timing of disease progression. But the mere fact that they had to answer these questions highlights the challenges NIH leadership faces: Their primary political backing comes from people who have limited respect for the scientific process. Pandering to them, though, will ultimately undercut any support they might achieve from the scientific community.

Managing that tension while starting a scientific revolution would be challenging on its own. But as the day’s talks made clear, the challenges are likely to be compounded by the lack of intellectual coherence behind the whole project. As much as it would be good to see the scientific community place greater value on reproducibility, these aren’t the right guys to make that happen.

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

NIH head, still angry about COVID, wants a second scientific revolution Read More »

Under Trump, EPA’s enforcement of environmental laws collapses, report finds

Environmental Protection Agency, Policy, pollution, Science, syndication, trump administration / DJ Henderson / February 7, 2026

The Environmental Protection Agency has drastically pulled back on holding polluters accountable.

Enforcement against polluters in the United States plunged in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, a far bigger drop than in the same period of his first term, according to a new report from a watchdog group.

By analyzing a range of federal court and administrative data, the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project found that civil lawsuits filed by the US Department of Justice in cases referred by the Environmental Protection Agency dropped to just 16 in the first 12 months after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025. That is 76 percent less than in the first year of the Biden administration.

Trump’s first administration filed 86 such cases in its first year, which was in turn a drop from the Obama administration’s 127 four years earlier.

“Our nation’s landmark environmental laws are meaningless when EPA does not enforce the rules,” Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement.

The findings echo two recent analyses from the nonprofits Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Earthjustice, which both documented dwindling environmental enforcement under Trump.

From day one of Trump’s second term, the administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda, scaling back regulations and health safeguards across the federal government that protect water, air and other parts of the environment. This push to streamline industry activities has been particularly favorable for fossil fuel companies. Trump declared an “energy emergency” immediately after his inauguration.

At the EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin launched in March what the administration called the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history”: 31 separate efforts to roll back restrictions on air and water pollution; to hand over more authority to states, some of which have a long history of supporting lax enforcement; and to relinquish EPA’s mandate to act on climate change under the Clean Air Act.

The new report suggests the agency is also relaxing enforcement of existing law. Neither the White House nor the EPA responded to a request for comment.

A “compliance first” approach

Part of the decline in lawsuits against polluters could be due to the lack of staff to carry them out, experts say. According to an analysis from E&E News, at least a third of lawyers in the Justice Department’s environment division have left in the past year. Meanwhile, the EPA in 2025 laid off hundreds of employees who monitored pollution that could hurt human health.

Top agency officials are also directing staff to issue fewer violation notices and reduce other enforcement actions. In December, the EPA formalized a new “compliance first” enforcement policy that stresses working with suspected violators to correct problems before launching any formal action that could lead to fines or mandatory correction measures.

“Formal enforcement … is appropriate only when compliance assurance or informal enforcement is inapplicable or insufficient to achieve rapid compliance,” wrote Craig Pritzlaff, who is now a principal deputy assistant EPA administrator, in a Dec. 5 memo to all enforcement officials and regional offices.

Only in rare cases involving an immediate hazard should enforcers use traditional case tools, Pritzlaff said. “Immediate formal enforcement may be required in certain circumstances, such as when there is an emergency that presents significant harm to human health and the environment,” he wrote.

Federal agencies like the EPA, with staffs far outmatched in size compared to the vast sectors of the economy they oversee, typically have used enforcement actions not only to deal with violators but to deter other companies from breaking the law. Environmental advocates worry that without environmental cops visible on the beat, compliance will erode.

Pritzlaff joined the EPA last fall after five years heading up enforcement for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, where nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen noted that he was known as a “reluctant regulator.” Public Citizen and other advocacy groups criticized TCEQ under Pritzlaff’s leadership for its reticence to take decisive action against repeat violators.

One example: An INEOS chemical plant had racked up close to 100 violations over a decade before a 2023 explosion that sent one worker to the hospital, temporarily shut down the Houston Ship Channel and sparked a fire that burned for an hour. Public Citizen said it was told by TCEQ officials that the agency allowed violations to accumulate over the years, arguing it was more efficient to handle multiple issues in a single enforcement action.

“But that proved to be untrue, instead creating a complex backlog of cases that the agency is still struggling to resolve,” Public Citizen wrote last fall after Pritzlaff joined the EPA. “That’s not efficiency, it’s failure.”

Early last year, TCEQ fined INEOS $2.3 million for an extensive list of violations that occurred between 2016 and 2021.

“A slap on the wrist”

The EPA doesn’t always take entities to court when they violate environmental laws. At times, the agency can resolve these issues through less-formal administrative cases, which actually increased during the first eight months of Trump’s second term when compared to the same period in the Biden administration, according to the new report.

However, most of these administrative actions involved violations of requirements for risk management plans under the Clean Air Act or municipalities’ violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Trump administration did not increase administrative cases that involve pollution from industrial operations, Environmental Integrity Project spokesperson Tom Pelton said over email.

Another signal of declining enforcement: Through September of last year, the EPA issued $41 million in penalties—$8 million less than the same period in the first year of the Biden administration, after adjusting for inflation. This suggests “the Trump Administration may be letting more polluters get by with a slap on the wrist when the Administration does take enforcement action,” the report reads.

Combined, the lack of lawsuits, penalties, and other enforcement actions for environmental violations could impact communities across the country, said Erika Kranz, a senior staff attorney in the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, who was not involved in the report.

“We’ve been seeing the administration deregulate by repealing rules and extending compliance deadlines, and this decline in enforcement action seems like yet another mechanism that the administration is using to de-emphasize environmental and public health protections,” Kranz said. “It all appears to be connected, and if you’re a person in the US who is worried about your health and the health of your neighbors generally, this certainly could have effects.”

The report notes that many court cases last longer than a year, so it will take time to get a clearer sense of how environmental enforcement is changing under the Trump administration. However, the early data compiled by the Environmental Integrity Project and other nonprofits shows a clear and steep shift away from legal actions against polluters.

Historically, administrations have a “lot of leeway on making enforcement decisions,” Kranz said. But this stark of a drop could prompt lawsuits against the Trump administration, she added.

“Given these big changes and trends, you might see groups arguing that this is more than just an exercise of discretion or choosing priorities [and] this is more of an abdication of an agency’s core mission and its statutory duties,” Kranz said. “I think it’s going to be interesting to see if groups make those arguments, and if they do, how courts look at them.”

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Under Trump, EPA’s enforcement of environmental laws collapses, report finds Read More »

Rocket Report: SpaceX probes upper stage malfunction; Starship testing resumes

artemis II, blue origin, china, Firefly Aerospace, NASA, new shepard, rocket report, Science, Space, space launch system, spacex, starship / Kelly Newman / February 7, 2026

Amazon has booked 10 more launches with SpaceX, citing a “near-term shortage in launch capacity.”

The top of SpaceX’s next Super Heavy booster, designated Booster 19, as the rocket undergoes testing at Starbase, Texas. The Rio Grande River is visible in the background. Credit: SpaceX

Welcome to Edition 8.28 of the Rocket Report! The big news in rocketry this week was that NASA still hasn’t solved the problem with hydrogen leaks on the Space Launch System. The problem caused months of delays before the first SLS launch in 2022, and the fuel leaks cropped up again Monday during a fueling test on NASA’s second SLS rocket. It is a continuing problem, and NASA’s sparse SLS launch rate makes every countdown an experiment, as my colleague Eric Berger wrote this week. NASA will conduct another fueling test in the coming weeks after troubleshooting the rocket’s leaky fueling line, but the launch of the Artemis II mission is off until March.

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.

Blue Origin “pauses” New Shepard flights. Blue Origin has “paused” its New Shepard program for the next two years, a move that likely signals a permanent end to the suborbital space tourism initiative, Ars reports. The small rocket and capsule have been flying since April 2015 and have combined to make 38 launches, all but one of which were successful, and 36 landings. In its existence, the New Shepard program flew 98 people to space, however briefly, and launched more than 200 scientific and research payloads into the microgravity environment.

Moon first… So why is Blue Origin, founded by Jeff Bezos more than a quarter of a century ago, ending the company’s longest-running program? “We will redirect our people and resources toward further acceleration of our human lunar capabilities inclusive of New Glenn,” wrote the company’s chief executive, Dave Limp, in an internal email on January 30. “We have an extraordinary opportunity to be a part of our nation’s goal of returning to the Moon and establishing a permanent, sustained lunar presence.” The cancellation came, generally, as a surprise to Blue Origin employees. The company flew its most recent mission a week prior to the announcement, launching six people into space.

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!

Firefly nears return to flight. Firefly Aerospace is preparing to launch its next 1-ton-class Alpha rocket later this month from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. The Texas-based company announced last month that it shipped the Alpha rocket to the California spaceport, and a follow-up post on social media on January 29 showed a video of the rocket rolling out to its launch pad for testing. “Alpha is vertical on the pad and getting ready for our static fire ahead of the Stairway to Seven mission!” Firefly wrote on X.

Getting back on track... This is an important mission for Firefly’s Alpha rocket program. On the most recent Alpha flight last April, the rocket’s first stage exploded in flight, moments after separation from the second stage. The blast wave damaged the upper stage engine, preventing it from reaching orbit with a small commercial tech demo satellite. Then, in September, the booster stage for the next Alpha launch was destroyed during a preflight test in Texas. Firefly says the upcoming mission is purely a test flight and won’t fly with any customer payloads. The company announced that an upgraded “Block II” version of the Alpha rocket will debut on the subsequent mission.

China to test next-gen crew capsule. China is gearing up for an important test of its new Mengzhou spacecraft, perhaps as soon as February 11, according to airspace warning notices issued around the Wenchang spaceport on Hainan Island. Images from public viewing sites around the launch site showed a test model of the Mengzhou spacecraft being lifted atop a booster stage this week. The flight next week is expected to include an in-flight test of the capsule’s launch abort system. Mengzhou is China’s next-generation crew spacecraft for human flights to the Moon. It will also replace China’s Shenzhou crew spacecraft used for flights to the Tiangong space station in low-Earth orbit.

Proceeding apace... The in-flight abort test follows a pad abort test of the Mengzhou spacecraft last year as China marches toward the program’s first orbital test flight. The booster stage for the in-flight abort test is a subscale version of China’s new Long March 10 rocket, the partially reusable human-rated launcher under development for the country’s lunar program. Therefore, next week’s milestone flight will serve as an important test of not only the Mengzhou spacecraft but also its rocket.

SpaceX confirms upper stage malfunction. SpaceX kicked off the month of February with a Monday morning Falcon 9 rocket launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. However, the rocket experienced an anomaly near the end of the mission, Spaceflight Now reports. The rocket deployed its payload of 25 Starlink satellites as planned, but SpaceX said the Falcon 9’s second stage “experienced an off-nominal condition” during preparation for an engine firing to steer back into the atmosphere for a guided, destructive reentry. The rocket remained in a low-altitude orbit and made an unguided reentry later in the week.

Launches temporarily on hold... “Teams are reviewing data to determine root cause and corrective actions before returning to flight,” SpaceX said in a statement. A Starlink launch from Florida originally planned for this week is now on hold. SpaceX returned the Falcon 9 rocket’s payload fairing, containing the Starlink payloads, from the launch pad back to the hangar at Kennedy Space Center to wait for the next launch opportunity. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 team in Florida is now focusing on preparations for launch of the Crew-12 mission to the International Space Station, targeted for no earlier than February 11. The schedule for Crew-12 will hinge on how quickly SpaceX can complete the investigation into Monday’s upper stage malfunction. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

Amazon’s new booking with SpaceX. Amazon has purchased an additional 10 Falcon 9 launches from SpaceX as part of its efforts to accelerate deployment of its broadband satellite constellation, Space News reports. The deal, which neither Amazon nor SpaceX previously announced, was disclosed in an Amazon filing with the Federal Communications Commission on January 30, seeking an extension of a July deadline to deploy half of its Amazon Leo constellation. Amazon has launched only 180 satellites of its planned 3,232-satellite constellation, rendering the July deadline unattainable. Amazon asked the FCC to extend the July deadline by two years or waive it entirely, but did not request an extension to the 2029 deadline for full deployment of the constellation.

“Near-term shortage in launch capacity”… In the filing with the FCC, Amazon said it faces a “near-term shortage of launch capacity” and is securing additional launch options “wherever available.” That effort includes working with SpaceX, whose Starlink constellation directly competes with Amazon Leo. Amazon bypassed SpaceX entirely when it made its initial orders for more than 80 Amazon Leo launches with United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, and Blue Origin, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. But Amazon later reserved three launches with SpaceX that flew last year and has now added 10 more SpaceX launches to its manifest. So far, Amazon has only launched satellites on ULA’s soon-to-retire Atlas V rocket and SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Amazon has not started flying on the new Vulcan, Ariane 6, or New Glenn rockets, which comprise the bulk of the constellation’s launch bookings. That could change next week with the first launch of Amazon Leo satellites on Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

China launches satellite for Algeria. Algeria’s Alsat-3B mission, an Earth observation satellite developed in collaboration with China, launched aboard a Chinese Long March 2C rocket on January 30, Connecting Africa reports. Alsat-3B is the twin of Alsat-3A, which launched from China earlier in the month. Algeria’s government signed a contract with China in 2023 covering the development and launch of the two Alsat-3 satellites. Both satellites are designed to provide high‑resolution Earth observation imagery, enhancing Algeria’s geospatial intelligence capabilities.

Belt, road, and orbit… In a joint statement, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the Algerian remote-sensing satellite project is another successful example of China-Algeria aerospace cooperation and an important demonstration of the two nations’ comprehensive strategic partnership. China has inked similar space-related partnerships to produce and launch satellites for other African nations, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Sudan.

Soyuz-5 launch set for March. Just a few months ago, Russia aimed to launch the first flight of the new Soyuz-5 medium-lift rocket before the end of 2025. Now, the Soyuz-5’s debut test flight is targeted for the end of March, Aviation Week & Space Technology reports. Dmitry Baranov, the deputy head of Roscosmos, announced the new schedule at a scientific conference in Moscow. The mission from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan would mark the first flight of a new Russian rocket since 2014.

A reactionary rocket… Ars has reported on the Soyuz-5 project before. While the rocket will use a new overall design, the underlying technology is not all that new. The Soyuz-5, also named Irtysh, is intended to be a replacement for the Zenit rocket, a medium-lift launcher developed in the final years before the fall of the Soviet Union. The Zenit rocket’s main stages were manufactured in Ukraine, and tensions between Russia and Ukraine spelled the end of the Zenit program even before Russia invaded its neighbor in 2022. The Soyuz-5 uses a modified version of the RD-171 engine that has flown since the 1980s. This new RD-171 design uses all Russian components. The upper stage engine is based on the same design flown on Russia’s workhorse Soyuz-2 rocket.

Fueling test reveals leaks on SLS rocket. The launch of NASA’s Artemis II mission, the first flight of astronauts to the Moon in more than 53 years, will have to wait another month after a fueling test on Monday uncovered hydrogen leaks in the connection between the rocket and its launch platform at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Ars reports. The practice countdown was designed to identify problems and provide NASA an opportunity to fix them before launch. Most importantly, the test revealed NASA still has not fully resolved recurring hydrogen leaks that delayed the launch of the unpiloted Artemis I test flight by several months in 2022. Artemis I finally launched successfully after engineers revised their hydrogen loading procedures to overcome the leak.

Hardware poor… Now, the second Space Launch System (SLS) rocket is on the cusp of launching a crew for the first time. Even as it reaches maturity, the rocket is going nowhere fast. It has been more than three years since NASA discovered leaks on the first SLS rocket. The rocket alone costs more than $2 billion to build. The program is hardware poor, leaving NASA unable to build a test model that might have been used to troubleshoot and resolve the hydrogen leaks before the agency proceeded into the Artemis II launch campaign. “Every SLS rocket is a work of art, every launch campaign an adventure, every mission subject to excessive delays. It’s definitely not ideal,” Ars reported in a story examining this problem.

SpaceX, meet xAI. SpaceX has formally acquired another one of Elon Musk’s companies, xAi, Ars reports. The merging of what is arguably Musk’s most successful company, SpaceX, with the more speculative xAI venture is a risk. Founded in 2023, xAI’s main products are the generative AI chatbot Grok and the social media site X, formerly known as Twitter. The company aims to compete with OpenAI and other artificial intelligence firms. However, Grok has been controversial, including the sexualization of women and children through AI-generated images, as has Musk’s management of Twitter.

Lots of assumptions… There can be no question that the merger of SpaceX—the world’s premier spaceflight company—and the artificial intelligence firm offers potential strategic advances. With this merger, Musk plans to use SpaceX’s deep expertise in rapid launch and satellite manufacturing and management to deploy a constellation of up to 1 million orbital data centers, providing the backbone of computing power needed to support xAI’s operations. All of this is predicated on several assumptions, including that AI is not a bubble, orbital data centers are cost-competitive compared to ground-based data centers, and that compute is the essential roadblock that will unlock widespread adoption of AI in society. Speculative, indeed, but only SpaceX has a rocket that might one day be able to realistically deploy a million satellites.

Starship testing resumes. The enormous rocket we’re talking about, of course, is SpaceX’s Starship. Ground teams at Starbase, Texas, have rolled the Super Heavy booster for SpaceX’s next Starship flight to a test stand for a series of checkouts ahead of the flight, currently slated for sometime in March. This will be the first launch of SpaceX’s upgraded “Block 3” Starship, with improvements aimed at making the rocket more reliable following several setbacks with Starship Block 2 last year.

Frosty night on the border… This is the second time a Block 3 booster has made the trip to the test stand at Starbase, located just north of the US-Mexico border. Booster 18 suffered a structural failure at the test site in November, forcing SpaceX to scrap it and complete the next rocket in line, Booster 19. On Wednesday night, SpaceX put Booster 19 through cryogenic proof testing, clearing a key milestone on the path to launch. The next flight will likely follow a similar profile as previous Starship missions, with a suborbital arc carrying the ship from its South Texas launch base to a splashdown in the Indian Ocean. If successful, the test will pave the way for bigger tests to come, including an in-space refueling demo and the catch and recovery of a Starship vehicle returning from space.

Next three launches

Feb. 7: Long March 2F | Chinese spaceplane? | Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, China | 03: 55 UTC

Feb. 7: Falcon 9 | Starlink 17-33 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, California | 17: 05 UTC

Feb. 11: Falcon 9 | Crew-12 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 11: 01 UTC

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.

Rocket Report: SpaceX probes upper stage malfunction; Starship testing resumes Read More »

COVID-19 cleared the skies but also supercharged methane emissions

atmospheric science, chemistry, climate change, Covid, greenhouse gasses, methane, pandemic, pollution, Science / Beth Washington / February 6, 2026

The remaining question, though, was where all this methane was coming from in the first place. Throughout the pandemic, there was speculation that the surge might be caused by super-emitter events in the oil and gas sector, or perhaps a lack of maintenance on leaky infrastructure during lockdowns.

But the new research suggests that the source of these emissions was not what many expected.

The microbial surge

While the weakened atmospheric sink explained the bulk of the 2020 surge, it wasn’t the only factor at play. The remaining 20 percent of the growth, and an even larger portion of the growth in 2021 and 2022, came from an increase in actual emissions from the ground. To track the source of these emissions down, Peng’s team went through tons of data from satellites and various ground monitoring stations.

Methane comes in different isotopic signatures. Methane from fossil fuels like natural gas leaks or coal mines is heavier, containing a higher fraction of the stable isotope carbon-13. Conversely, methane produced by microbes found in the guts of livestock, in landfills, and most notably in wetlands, is lighter, enriched in carbon-12.

When the researchers analyzed data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration global flask network, a worldwide monitoring system tracking the chemical composition of Earth’s atmosphere, they found that the atmospheric methane during the mysterious surge was becoming significantly lighter. This was a smoking gun for biogenic sources. The surge wasn’t coming from pipes or power plants; it was coming from microbes.

La Niña came to play

The timing of the pandemic coincided with a relatively rare meteorological event. La Niña, the cool phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation that typically leads to increased rainfall in the tropics, lasted for three consecutive Northern Hemisphere winters (from 2020 to 2023). This made the early 2020s exceptionally wet.

The researchers used satellite data from the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite and sophisticated atmospheric models to trace the source of the light methane to vast wetland areas in tropical Africa and Southeast Asia. In regions like the Sudd in South Sudan and the Congo Basin, record-breaking rainfall flooded massive swaths of land. In these waterlogged, oxygen-poor environments, microbial methanogens thrived, churning out methane at an accelerated pace.

COVID-19 cleared the skies but also supercharged methane emissions Read More »

New critique debunks claim that trees can sense a solar eclipse

botany, Debunking, plant behavior, plant communication, Science / 9u50fv / February 6, 2026

“He puts forward logical alternative hypotheses,” said Cahill of Novoplansky’s critique. “The original work should have tested among a number of different hypotheses rather than focusing on a single interpretation. This is in part what makes it pseudoscience and promoting a worldview.”

Granted, “[p]lants have extensive and well established mechanisms of communication, with that of volatiles being the most well studied and understood,” he added. “There is also growing recognition that root exudates play a role in plant-plant interactions, though this is only now being deeply investigated. Nothing else, communication through mychorriza, has withstood independent investigation.”

Chiolerio and Gagliano stand by their research, saying they have always acknowledged the preliminary nature of their results. “We measured [weather-related elements like] temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and daily solar radiation,” Chiolerio told Ars. “None of them shows strong correlation with the transients of the electrome during the eclipse. We did not measure environmental electric fields, though; therefore, I cannot exclude effects induced by nearby lightnings. We did not have gravitational probes, did not check neutrinos, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, etc.”

“I’m not going to debate an unpublished critique in the media, but I can clarify our position,” Gagliano told Ars. “Our [2025] paper reports an empirical electrophysiological/synchrony pattern in the eclipse window, including changes beginning prior to maximum occultation, and we discussed candidate cues explicitly as hypotheses rather than demonstrated causes. Describing weather/lightning as ‘more parsimonious’ is not evidence of cause. Regional lightning strike counts and other proxies can motivate a competing hypothesis, but they do not establish causal attribution at the recording site without site-resolved, time-aligned field measurements. Without those measurements, the lightning/weather account remains a hypothesis among other possibilities rather than a supported or default explanation for the signals we recorded.”

“We acknowledged the limited sample size and described the work as an initial field report; follow-up work is ongoing and will be communicated through peer-reviewed channels,” Gagliano added. As for the suggestion of pseudoscience, “I won’t engage with labels; scientific disagreements should be resolved with transparent methods, data, and discriminating tests.”

“It seems that the public appeal is something particularly painful for the colleagues who published their opinion on Trends in Plant Science,” Chiolerio said. “We did not care about public appeal, we wanted to share as much as possible the results of years of hard work that led to interesting data.”

DOI: Trends in Plant Science, 2026. 10.1016/j.tplants.2025.12.001 (About DOIs).

DOI: A. Chiolerio et al., Royal Society Open Science, 2025. 10.1098/rsos.241786 (About DOIs).

New critique debunks claim that trees can sense a solar eclipse Read More »

Lawmakers ask what it would take to “store” the International Space Station

congress, human spaceflight, international space station, NASA, Science, Space, space debris, space policy / Shannon Garcia / February 6, 2026

NASA shall evaluate the “viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor” after retirement.

The International Space Station, with a crew of six onboard, is seen in silhouette as it transits the Moon at roughly five miles per second on Saturday, December 2, 2017, in Manchester Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky

Members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee voted to approve a NASA authorization bill this week, advancing legislation chock full of policy guidelines meant to give lawmakers a voice in the space agency’s strategic direction.

The committee met to “mark up” the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026, adding more than 40 amendments to the bill before a unanimous vote to refer the legislation to the full House of Representatives. Wednesday’s committee vote was just one of several steps needed for the bill to become law. It must pass a vote on the House floor, win approval from the Senate, and then go to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature.

Ars has reported on one of the amendments, which would authorize NASA to take steps toward a “commercial” deep space program using privately owned rockets and spacecraft rather than vehicles owned by the government.

Another add-on to the authorization bill would require NASA to reassess whether to guide the International Space Station (ISS) toward a destructive atmospheric reentry after it is decommissioned in 2030. The space agency’s current plan is to deorbit the space station in 2031 over the Pacific Ocean, where debris that survives the scorching reentry will fall into a remote, unpopulated part of the sea.

No policy change—yet

The most recent NASA authorization act, passed in 2022, extended the US government’s support for the ISS program until 2030. The amendment tacked onto this year’s bill would not change the timeline for ending operations on the ISS, but it asks NASA to reconsider its decision about what to do with the complex after retirement.

The amendment would direct NASA to “carry out an engineering analysis to evaluate the technical, operational, and logistical viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor and storing the ISS in such harbor after the end of the operational low-Earth orbit lifetime of the ISS to preserve the ISS for potential reuse and satisfy the objectives of NASA.”

Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.) submitted the amendment with cosponsorship from Rep. Nick Begich (R-Alaska). The proposal passed the committee through a voice vote with bipartisan support. Whitesides was a NASA chief of staff and longtime executive in the space industry before his election to the House last year.

“The International Space Station is one of the most complex engineering achievements in human history,” Whitesides said. “It represents more than three decades of international collaboration and investment by US taxpayers estimated at well over $100 billion. Current plans call for the station to be deorbited at the end of its service life in 2030. This amendment does not seek to change that policy. Instead, it asks a straightforward question: Before we permanently dispose of an asset of this magnitude, should we fully understand whether it’s viable to preserve it in orbit for potential use by future generations?”

In 2024, NASA awarded SpaceX a nearly $1 billion contract to develop a souped-up version of its Dragon spacecraft, which would be equipped with additional thrusters and propellant tanks to provide the impulse required to steer the space station toward a targeted reentry. The deorbit maneuvers will slow the station’s velocity enough for Earth’s gravity to pull it back into the atmosphere.

Artist’s illustration of SpaceX’s deorbit vehicle, based on the design of the company’s Dragon spacecraft. The modified spacecraft will have 46 Draco thrusters—30 for the deorbit maneuvers and 16 for attitude control. Credit: SpaceX

The deorbit vehicle needs to slow the station’s speed by about 127 mph (57 meters per second), a tiny fraction of the spacecraft’s orbital velocity of more than 17,000 mph (7.7 kilometers per second). But the station mass is around 450 tons (400 metric tons), equivalent to two freight train locomotives, and measures about the length of a football field. Changing its speed by just 127 mph will consume about 10 tons (9 metric tons) of propellant, according to a NASA analysis released in 2024.

The analysis document shows that NASA considered alternatives to discarding the space station through reentry. One option NASA studied involved moving the station into a higher orbit. At its current altitude, roughly 260 miles (420 kilometers) above the Earth, the ISS would take one to two years to reenter the atmosphere due to aerodynamic drag if reboosts weren’t performed. NASA does not want the space station to make an uncontrolled reentry because of the risk of fatalities, injuries, and property damage from debris reaching the ground.

Boosting the space station’s orbit to somewhere between 400 and 420 miles (640 to 680 kilometers) would require a little more than twice the propellant (18.9 to 22.3 metric tons) needed for deorbit maneuvers, according to NASA’s analysis. At that altitude, without any additional boosts, NASA says the space station would likely remain in orbit for 100 years before succumbing to atmospheric drag and burning up. Going higher still, the space station could be placed in a 1,200-mile-high (2,000-kilometer) orbit, stable for more than 10,000 years, with about 146 tons (133 metric tons) of propellant.

There are two problems with sending the ISS to higher altitudes. One is that it would require the development of new propulsive and tanker vehicles that do not currently exist, according to NASA.

“While still currently in development, vehicles such as the SpaceX Starship are being designed to deliver significant amounts of cargo to these orbits,” NASA officials wrote in their analysis. “However, there are prohibitive engineering challenges with docking such a large vehicle to the space station and being able to use its thrusters while remaining within space station structural margins. Other vehicles would require both new certifications to fly at higher altitudes and multiple flights to deliver propellant.”

Going higher would also expose the space station to an increased risk of collision with space junk. The hazards from space debris are most severe at about 500 miles (800 kilometers), according to the engineers who conducted the analysis. “This means that the likelihood of an impact leaving station unable to maneuver or react to future threats, or even a significant impact resulting in complete fragmentation, is unacceptably high.”

This photo of the International Space Station was captured by a crew member on a Soyuz spacecraft. Credit: NASA/Roscosmos

Whitesides’ office did not respond to Ars’ questions, but he said in Wednesday’s hearing that his amendment would direct NASA to further examine the costs and risks of putting the ISS in a higher orbit. The legislation “simply ensures that Congress receives a rigorous fact-based analysis so that future decisions involving the ISS are informed by scientific reality,” he said.

“At a time when we’re thinking seriously about sustainability in space, this amendment protects taxpayer investments and ensures that we fully understand our options before an irreplaceable asset is permanently retired.”

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said he “wholeheartedly” supports Whitesides’ amendment. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) also endorsed it in brief remarks during Wednesday’s markup hearing.

“I just hate the thought that we would take something not just that we spent all the money on, but such an important part of human history, and dump it in the Pacific Ocean, never to be seen again, rather than preserving it,” Beyer said. “We don’t know whether we can do it in orbit, but if we can, we should really explore that hard.”

It’s not too late

Although NASA’s official policy is still to decommission the ISS in 2030, the door hasn’t closed on extending the lab’s operations into the next decade. There are some concerns about aging hardware, but NASA said in 2024 that engineers have “high confidence” that the primary structure of the station could support operations beyond 2030.

The oldest segments of the station have been in orbit since 1998, undergoing day-night thermal cycles every 45 minutes as they orbit the planet. The structural stability of the Russian section of the outpost is also in question. Russian engineers traced a small but persistent air leak to microscopic structural cracks in one Russian module, but cosmonauts were able to seal the cracks, and air pressure in the area is “holding steady,” a NASA spokesperson said last month.

One of the lab’s most critical elements, its power-generation system, is in good shape after NASA recently installed upgraded solar arrays outside the station. Another set of upgraded solar panels is scheduled to arrive at the station later this year, just a few years before the complex is to be retired.

NASA’s strategy is to decommission the ISS and turn to the commercial sector for new, cheaper, smaller space stations to continue conducting research in low-Earth orbit. This would allow NASA to buy time on a commercial space station for its astronauts and experiments, while the agency’s human spaceflight program focuses on missions to the Moon.

That’s a fine plan, but NASA’s program to support commercial space stations, known as Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs), is going nowhere fast. Supporters of the CLD program say it has been underfunded from the start, and the strategy became more muddled last year when Sean Duffy, then NASA’s acting administrator, changed the agency’s rules for private space stations. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman is reviewing the changes, and the requirements for stations may shift again.

NASA spends more than $3 billion per year for ISS operations, including crew and cargo transportation services to staff and support the outpost. NASA’s budget for deep space exploration in fiscal year 2026 is nearly $7.8 billion. NASA is receiving $273 million for the Commercial LEO Destinations program this year, with the money to be divided among multiple companies.

Any private space station will need to sustain itself, at least partially, on commercial business to be profitable. Developers have raised concerns that they will be unable to attract sufficient commercial business—in areas like pharmaceutical research, tech demos, or space tourism—as long as the government-funded ISS is still operating.

One of the companies vying for NASA funding is Vast, which plans to launch its first single-module private outpost to orbit in early 2027. This first station, named Haven-1, will accommodate crews for short-duration temporary stays. Vast plans to follow Haven-1 with a much larger multi-module station capable of supporting a permanent crew.

Max Haot, Vast’s CEO, does not seem bothered by lawmakers’ efforts to revisit the question of deorbiting the International Space Station.

“The amendment directs NASA to study the feasibility of something other than deorbit and disposal after ISS end of life, which is separate from the issue of retiring the space station and transitioning to commercial partners,” Haot said in a statement to Ars. “We support President Trump’s directive in national space policy to replace the ISS by 2030, with commercial partners who can ensure there is no gap in America’s continuous human presence in space.”

The other top contenders in the commercial space station arena are Starlab, a joint venture between Voyager Space and Airbus, the Blue Origin-led Orbital Reef project, and Axiom Space. Voyager and Blue Origin did not respond to requests for comment from Ars, and an Axiom spokesperson was unable to provide a statement by publication time.

Lawmakers ask what it would take to “store” the International Space Station Read More »

Watch Kanzi the bonobo pretend to have a tea party

animal behavior, animal cognition, Biology, bonobos, primate studies, Science / Mike M. / February 5, 2026

Such studies have nonetheless been met with skepticism when it comes to interpreting the behavior as evidence of animals’ ability to engage in make-believe. For instance, it’s possible the animals are responding to behavioral cues, like the direction of a gaze, to solve such tasks.

“Kanzi, let’s play a game!”

Enter Kanzi, a 43-year-old bonobo who lives at the Ape Initiative and is capable of responding to verbal prompts, either by pointing or using a lexigram of more than 300 symbols. There had also been anecdotal observations of Kanzi engaging in pretense. Krupenye et al. conducted three distinct experiments with Kanzi, each involving an 18-trial session.

In the first experiment, a scientist would offer a verbal prompt: “Kanzi, let’s play a game! Let’s find the juice!” They would then place two empty transparent cups on a table and pretend to fill them from an empty transparent pitcher, with another verbal prompt (“Kanzi, look!”). The scientist would pretend to pour the “juice” in one of the cups back into the pitcher, placing the pitcher under the table. Then they asked, “Kanzi, where’s the juice?” and recorded which cup the bonobo pointed to first.

“If Kanzi could only track reality (that both cups were empty), he should have chosen at chance between the two options, whereas if his choices were guided by stimulus enhancement, he should have selected the incorrect cup that had been ‘emptied’ above chance,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, if Kanzi could represent the pretend juice, he should have chosen above chance the cup containing the ‘imaginary’ juice, the empty cup that had not been ‘poured’ back into the pitcher. That is exactly what Kanzi did.” Kanzi selected the correct cup 34 out of 50 times (68 percent).

Watch Kanzi the bonobo pretend to have a tea party Read More »

This black hole “burps” with Death Star energy

astronomy, astrophysics, black holes, Science, tidal disruption events / Kelly Newman / February 5, 2026

When AT2018hyz, aka “Jetty,” was first discovered, radio telescopes didn’t detect any signatures of an outflow emission of material within the first few months. According to Cendes, that’s true of some 80 percent of TDEs, so astronomers moved on, preferring to use precious telescope time for more potentially interesting objects. A few years later, radio data from the Very Large Array (VLA) showed that Jetty was lighting up the skies again, spewing out material at a whopping 1.4 millijansky at 5 GHz.

Since then, that brightness has kept increasing. Just how large is the increase? Well, people have estimated the fictional Death Star’s emitted energy in the Star Wars saga, and Jetty McJetface’s emissions are a trillion times more than that, perhaps as much as 100 trillion times the energy. As for why Jetty initially eluded detection, there seems to be a single jet emitting radiation in one direction that might not have been aimed at Earth. Astronomers should be able to confirm this once the energy peaks.

Cendes and her team are now scouring the skies for similar behavior in high-energy TDEs, since the existence of Jetty suggests that delayed outflow is more common than astronomers previously expected. It’s such an unprecedented phenomenon that astronomers haven’t really looked for them before. After all, “If you have an explosion, why would you expect there to be something years after the explosion happened when you didn’t see something before?” said Cendes.

DOI: Astrophysical Journal, 2026. 10.3847/1538-4357/ae286d (About DOIs).

This black hole “burps” with Death Star energy Read More »

Court orders restart of all US offshore wind construction

department of the interior, green, injunction, lawsuit, offshore wind, Policy, renewable energy, Science, trump administration, wind power / Mike M. / February 2, 2026

Based on reporting elsewhere, some of the judges viewed the classified report that was used to justify the order to halt construction, but they didn’t find it persuasive. In one case, the judge noted that the government wasn’t acting as if the security risks were real. The threat supposedly comes from the operation of the wind turbines, but the Department of the Interior’s order blocked construction while allowing any completed hardware to operate.

“If the government’s concern is the operation of these facilities, allowing the ongoing operation of the 44 turbines while prohibiting the repair of the existing turbines and the completion of the 18 additional turbines is irrational,” Judge Brian E. Murphy said. That once again raises the possibility that the order halting construction will ultimately be held to be arbitrary and capricious.

For now, however, the courts are largely offering the wind projects relief because the ruling was issued without any warning or communication from the government and would clearly inflict substantial harm on the companies building them. The injunction blocks the government’s hold on construction until a final ruling is issued. The government can still appeal the decision before that point, but the consistency among these rulings suggests it will likely fail.

Several of these projects are near completion and are likely to be done before any government appeal can be heard.

Court orders restart of all US offshore wind construction Read More »

A century of hair samples proves leaded gas ban worked

chemistry, geochemistry, leaded gasoline, Science / Mike M. / February 2, 2026

Science also produced a hero in this saga: Caltech geochemist Clair Patterson. Along with George Tilton, Patterson developed a lead-dating method and used it to calculate the age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), based on analysis of the Canton Diablo meteorite. And he soon became a leading advocate for banning leaded gasoline and the “leaded solder” used in canned foods. This put Patterson at odds with some powerful industry lobbies, for which he paid a professional price.

But his many experimental findings on the extent of lead contamination and its toxic effects ultimately led to the rapid phase-out of lead in all standard automotive gasolines. Prior to the EPA’s actions in the 1970s, most gasolines contained about 2 grams of lead per gallon, which quickly adds up to nearly 2 pounds of lead released via automotive exhaust into the environment, per person, every year.

The proof is in our hair

The U.S. Mining and Smelting Co. plant in Midvale, Utah, 1906. — The US Mining and Smelting Co. plant in Midvale, Utah, 1906. Credit: Utah Historical Society

Lead can linger in the air for several days, contaminating one’s lungs, accumulating in living tissue, and being absorbed by one’s hair. Cerling had previously developed techniques to determine where animals lived and their diet by analyzing hair and teeth. Those methods proved ideal for analyzing hair samples from Utah residents who had previously participated in an earlier study that sampled their blood.

The subjects supplied hair samples both from today and when they were very young; some were even able to provide hair preserved in family scrapbooks that had belonged to their ancestors. The Utah population is well-suited for such a study because the cities of Midvale and Murray were home to a vibrant smelting industry through most of the 20th century; most other smelters in the region closed down in the 1970s when the EPA cracked down on using lead in consumer products.

A century of hair samples proves leaded gas ban worked Read More »

Judge rules Department of Energy’s climate working group was illegal

climate change, doe, endangerment finding, EPA, greenhouse gasses, lawsuit, Policy, Science / Shannon Garcia / February 2, 2026

But the flaws weren’t limited to scientific deficiencies. Two advocacy organizations, the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists, sued, alleging that the Climate Working Group violated various provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This requires that any groups formed to provide the government with advice must be fairly balanced and keep records that are open to the public. The Climate Working Group, by contrast, operated in secret; in fact, emails obtained during the trial showed that its members were advised to use private emails to limit public scrutiny of their communications.

In response, the DOE dissolved the Climate Working Group in order to claim that the legal issues were moot, as the advisory committee at issue in the suit no longer existed.

No defense

In court, the government initially argued that the Federal Advisory Committee Act didn’t apply, claiming that the Climate Working Group was simply organized to provide information to the government. Based on Friday’s ruling, however, once the court tried to consider that issue, the government shifted to simply arguing that the Climate Working Group no longer existed, so none of this mattered. “The Defendants, in their Opposition and subsequent filings, ignore the allegations relating to the [Federal Advisory Committee Act] violations themselves,” the judge states. “Rather, the Defendants argue only that these claims are moot because the Climate Working Group has been dissolved.”

So, the court was left with little more than the accusations that the Climate Working Group had a membership with biased opinions, failed to hold open meetings, and did not keep public records. Given the lack of opposing arguments, “These violations are now established as a matter of law.”

Judge rules Department of Energy’s climate working group was illegal Read More »