Science – Page 25

LA’s Museum of Jurassic Technology damaged by fire

culture, Lawrence Weschler, museum of jurassic technology, museums, Science, wunderkammers / 9u50fv / July 22, 2025

Not all of the artifacts housed within the MJT’s labyrinthine space are, shall we say, truly historical; Wilson has a sense of humor, a vivid imagination, and a cheeky fondness for the absurd. Lawrence Weschler tracked down the provenance (where relevant) of the exhibits in his 1996 book, Mr. Wilson’s Cabinet of Wonder: Pronged Ants, Horned Humans, Mice on Toast, and Other Marvels of Jurassic Technology. (It’s a delightful read.)

Weschler’s blog provides the most detailed account of what happened when the fire broke out on the night of July 8. Wilson, who lives out back, saw what was happening, grabbed a couple of fire extinguishers, and ran to the gift shop entry hall, where he emptied the canisters into what Wilson describes as “a ferocious column of flame lapping up the far street-facing corner wall.”

That wasn’t enough to douse the fire, but fortunately, Wilson’s daughter and son-in-law soon arrived with a much bigger extinguisher and doused the flames. Firefighters showed up shortly thereafter to stamp out any lingering embers and told Wilson, “Just one more minute and you’d likely have lost the whole building.” Wilson described the smoke damage “as if a thin creamy brown liquid had been evenly poured over all the surfaces—the walls, the vitrines, the ceiling, the carpets, and eyepieces, everything.”

Staff and volunteers have been working to repair the damage ever since, with smoke damage repairs being particularly labor-intensive. Weschler closed his blog post with a call for donations to the MJT’s general fund to help the cash-strapped museum weather this particular storm, praising the MJT as “one of the most truly sublime institutions in the country.”

LA’s Museum of Jurassic Technology damaged by fire Read More »

Win for chemical industry as EPA shutters scientific research office

EPA, Office of Research and Development, Science, syndication / 9u50fv / July 22, 2025

Deregulation runs rampant

Companies feared rules and lawsuits based on Office of Research and Development assessments.

Soon after President Donald Trump took office in January, a wide array of petrochemical, mining, and farm industry coalitions ramped up what has been a long campaign to limit use of the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessments of the health risks of chemicals.

That effort scored a significant victory Friday when EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced his decision to dismantle the agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The industry lobbyists didn’t ask for hundreds of ORD staff members to be laid off or reassigned. But the elimination of the agency’s scientific research arm goes a long way toward achieving the goal they sought.

In a January 27 letter to Zeldin organized by the American Chemistry Council, more than 80 industry groups—including leading oil, refining, and mining associations—asked him to end regulators’ reliance on ORD assessments of the risks that chemicals pose for human health. The future of that research, conducted under EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System program, or IRIS, is now uncertain.

“EPA’s IRIS program within ORD has a troubling history of being out of step with the best available science and methods, lacking transparency, and being unresponsive to peer review and stakeholder recommendations,” said an American Chemistry Council spokesperson in an email when asked about the decision to eliminate ORD. “This results in IRIS assessments that jeopardize access to critical chemistries, undercut national priorities, and harm American competitiveness.”

The spokesperson said the organization supports EPA evaluating its resources to ensure tax dollars are being used efficiently and effectively.

Christopher Frey, an associate dean at North Carolina State University who served as EPA assistant administrator in charge of ORD during the Biden administration, defended the quality of the science done by the office, which he said is “the poster case study of what it means to do science that’s subject to intense scrutiny.”

“There’s industry with a tremendous vested interest in the policy decisions that might occur later on,” based on the assessments made by ORD. “What the industry does is try to engage in a proxy war over the policy by attacking the science.”

Among the IRIS assessments that stirred the most industry concern were those outlining the dangers of formaldehyde, ethylene oxide, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium. Regulatory actions had begun or were looming on all during the Biden administration.

The Biden administration also launched a lawsuit against a LaPlace, Louisiana, plant that had been the only US manufacturer of neoprene, Denka Performance Elastomer, based in part on the IRIS assessment of one of its air pollutants, chloroprene, as a likely human carcinogen. Denka, a spinoff of DuPont, announced it was ceasing production in May because of the cost of pollution controls.

Public health advocates charge that eliminating the IRIS program, or shifting its functions to other offices in the agency, will rob the EPA of the independent expertise to inform its mission of protection.

“They’ve been trying for years to shut down IRIS,” said Darya Minovi, a senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists and lead author of a new study on Trump administration actions that the group says undermine science. “The reason why is because when IRIS conducts its independent scientific assessments using a great amount of rigor… you get stronger regulations, and that is not in the best interest of the big business polluters and those who have a financial stake in the EPA’s demise.”

The UCS report tallied more than 400 firings, funding cuts, and other attacks on science in the first six months of the Trump administration, resulting in 54 percent fewer grants for research on topics including cancer, infectious disease, and environmental health.

EPA’s press office did not respond to a query on whether the IRIS controversy helped inform Zeldin’s decision to eliminate ORD, which had been anticipated since staff were informed of the potential plan at a meeting in March. In the agency’s official announcement Friday afternoon, Zeldin said the elimination of the office was part of “organizational improvements” that would deliver $748.8 million in savings to taxpayers. The reduction in force, combined with previous departures and layoffs, have reduced the agency’s workforce by 23 percent, to 12,448, the EPA said.

With the cuts, the EPA’s workforce will be at its lowest level since fiscal year 1986.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback,” Zeldin said in the prepared statement. “This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.”

The agency will be creating a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions; a report by E&E News said an internal memo indicated the new office would be much smaller than ORD, and would focus on coastal areas, drinking water safety, and methodologies for assessing environmental contamination.

Zeldin’s announcement also said that scientific expertise and research efforts will be moved to “program offices”—for example, those concerned with air pollution, water pollution, or waste—to tackle “statutory obligations and mission essential functions.” That phrase has a particular meaning: The chemical industry has long complained that Congress never passed a law creating IRIS. Congress did, however, pass many laws requiring that the agency carry out its actions based on the best available science, and the IRIS program, established during President Ronald Reagan’s administration, was how the agency has carried out the task of assessing the science on chemicals since 1985.

Justin Chen, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, the union representing 8,000 EPA workers nationwide, said the organizational structure of ORD put barriers between the agency’s researchers and the agency’s political decision-making, enforcement, and regulatory teams—even though they all used ORD’s work.

“For them to function properly, they have to have a fair amount of distance away from political interference, in order to let the science guide and develop the kind of things that they do,” Chen said.

“They’re a particular bugbear for a lot of the industries which are heavy donors to the Trump administration and to the right wing,” Chen said. “They’re the ones, I believe, who do all the testing that actually factors into the calculation of risk.”

ORD also was responsible for regularly doing assessments that the Clean Air Act requires on pollutants like ozone and particulate matter, which result from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Frey said a tremendous amount of ORD work has gone into ozone, which is the result of complex interactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere. The open source computer modeling on ozone transport, developed by ORD researchers, helps inform decision-makers grappling with how to address smog around the country. The Biden administration finalized stricter standards for particulate matter in its final year based on ORD’s risk assessment, and the Trump administration is now undoing those rules.

Aidan Hughes contributed to this report.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Win for chemical industry as EPA shutters scientific research office 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 »

Southwestern drought likely to continue through 2100, research finds

climate change, drought, Science, southwestern united states, syndication / Shannon Garcia / July 20, 2025

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.

The drought in the Southwestern US is likely to last for the rest of the 21st century and potentially beyond as global warming shifts the distribution of heat in the Pacific Ocean, according to a study published last week led by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin.

Using sediment cores collected in the Rocky Mountains, paleoclimatology records and climate models, the researchers found warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions can alter patterns of atmospheric and marine heat in the North Pacific Ocean in a way resembling what’s known as the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), fluctuations in sea surface temperatures that result in decreased winter precipitation in the American Southwest. But in this case, the phenomenon can last far longer than the usual 30-year cycle of the PDO.

“If the sea surface temperature patterns in the North Pacific were just the result of processes related to stochastic [random] variability in the past decade or two, we would have just been extremely unlucky, like a really bad roll of the dice,” said Victoria Todd, the lead author of the study and a PhD student in geosciences at University of Texas at Austin. “But if, as we hypothesize, this is a forced change in the sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific, this will be sustained into the future, and we need to start looking at this as a shift, instead of just the result of bad luck.”

Currently, the Southwestern US is experiencing a megadrought resulting in the aridification of the landscape, a decades-long drying of the region brought on by climate change and the overconsumption of the region’s water. That’s led to major rivers and their basins, such as the Colorado and Rio Grande rivers, seeing reduced flows and a decline of the water stored in underground aquifers, which is forcing states and communities to reckon with a sharply reduced water supply. Farmers have cut back on the amount of water they use. Cities are searching for new water supplies. And states, tribes, and federal agencies are engaging in tense negotiations over how to manage declining resources like the Colorado River going forward.

Southwestern drought likely to continue through 2100, research finds Read More »

How Android phones became an earthquake warning system

accelerometers, android, Android Earthquake Alert, earthquakes, Google, Science, seismology, smart phones / Shannon Garcia / July 19, 2025

Of course, the trick is that you only send out the warning if there’s an actual earthquake, and not when a truck is passing by. Here, the sheer volume of Android phones sold plays a key role. As a first pass, AEA can simply ignore events that aren’t picked up by a lot of phones in the same area. But we also know a lot about the patterns of shaking that earthquakes produce. Different waves travel at different speeds, cause different types of ground motion, and may be produced at different intensities as the earthquake progresses.

So, the people behind AEA also include a model of earthquakes and seismic wave propagation, and check whether the pattern seen in phones’ accelerometers is consistent with that model. It only triggers an alert when there’s widespread phone activity that matches the pattern expected for an earthquake.

Raising awareness

In practical terms, AEA is distributed as part of the core Android software, and is set to on by default, so it is active in most Android phones. It starts monitoring when the phone has been stationary for a little while, checking for acceleration data that’s consistent with the P or S waves produced by earthquakes. If it gets a match, it forwards the information along with some rough location data (to preserve privacy) to Google servers. Software running on those servers then performs the positional analysis to see if the waves are widespread enough to have been triggered by an earthquake.

If so, it estimates the size and location, and uses that information to estimate the ground motion that will be experienced in different locations. Based on that, AEA sends out one of two alerts, either “be aware” or “take action.” The “be aware” alert is similar to a standard Android notification, but it plays a distinctive sound and is sent to users further from the epicenter. In contrast, the “take action” warning that’s sent to those nearby will display one of two messages in the appropriate language, either “Protect yourself” or “Drop, cover, and hold on.” It ignores any do-not-disturb settings, takes over the entire screen, and also plays a distinct noise.

How Android phones became an earthquake warning system Read More »

Local cuisine was on the menu at Cafe Neanderthal

ancient people did stuff, Archaeology, Neanderthals, paleoarchaeology, Science / DJ Henderson / July 18, 2025

Gazelle prepared “a la Amud,” or “a la Kebara”?

Neanderthals at Kebara had pretty broad tastes in meat. The butchered bones found in the cave were mostly an even mix of small ungulates (largely gazelle) and medium-sized ones (red deer, fallow deer, wild goats, and boar), with just a few larger game animals thrown in. And it looks like the Kebara Neanderthals were “use the whole deer” sorts of hunters because the bones came from all parts of the animals’ bodies.

On the other hand (or hoof), at Amud, archaeologists found that the butchered bones were almost entirely long bone shafts—legs, in other words—from gazelle. Apparently, the Neanderthal hunters at Amud focused more on gazelle than on larger prey like red deer or boar, and they seemingly preferred meat from the legs.

And not too fresh, apparently—the bones at Kebara showed fewer cut marks, and the marks that were there tended to be straighter. Meanwhile, at Amud, the bones were practically cluttered with cut marks, which crisscrossed over each other and were often curved, not straight. According to Jallon and her colleagues, the difference probably wasn’t a skill issue. Instead, it may be a clue that Neanderthals at Amud liked their meat dried, boiled, or even slightly rotten.

That’s based on comparisons to what bones look like when modern hunter-gatherers butcher their game, along with archaeologists’ experiments with stone tool butchery. First, differences in skill between newbie butchers and advanced ones don’t produce the same pattern of cut marks Jallon and her colleagues saw at Amud. But “it has been shown that decaying carcasses tend to be more difficult to process, often resulting in the production of haphazard, deep, and sinuous cut marks,” as Jallon and her colleagues wrote in their recent paper.

So apparently, for reasons unknown to modern archaeologists, the meat on the menu at Amud was, shall we say, a bit less fresh than that at Kebara. Said menu was also considerably less varied. All of that meant that if you were a Neanderthal from Amud and stopped by Kebara for dinner (or vice versa) your meal might seem surprisingly foreign.

Local cuisine was on the menu at Cafe Neanderthal Read More »

Fanfic study challenges leading cultural evolution theory

balance theory, cultural evolution, culture, digital humanities, fan fiction, psychology, Science, social sciences / Kelly Newman / July 17, 2025

Fanfic community craves familiarity much more than novelty—but reports greater enjoyment from novelty.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Marvel

It’s widely accepted conventional wisdom that when it comes to creative works—TV shows, films, music, books—consumers crave an optimal balance between novelty and familiarity. What we choose to consume and share with others, in turn, drives cultural evolution.

But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong? An analysis based on data from a massive online fan fiction (fanfic) archive contradicts this so-called “balance theory,” according to a paper published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. The fanfic community seems to overwhelmingly prefer more of the same, consistently choosing familiarity over novelty; however, they reported greater overall enjoyment when they took a chance and read something more novel. In short: “Sameness entices, but novelty enchants.”

Strictly speaking, authors have always copied characters and plots from other works (cf. many of William Shakespeare’s plays), although the advent of copyright law complicated matters. Modern fan fiction as we currently think of it arguably emerged with the 1967 publication of the first Star Trek fanzine (Spockanalia), which included spinoff fiction based on the series. Star Trek also spawned the subgenre of slash fiction, when writers began creating stories featuring Kirk and Spock (Kirk/Spock, or K/S) in a romantic (often sexual) relationship.

The advent of the World Wide Web brought fan fiction to the masses, starting with Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists and eventually the development of massive online archives where creators could upload their work to be read and commented upon by readers. The subculture has since exploded; there’s fanfic based on everything from Sherlock Holmes to The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Game of Thrones, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Harry Potter. You name it, there’s probably fanfic about it.

There are also many subgenres within fanfic beyond slash, some of them rather weird, like a magical pregnancy (Mpreg) story in which Sherlock Holmes and Watson fall so much in love with each other that one of them becomes magically pregnant. (One suspects Sherlock would not handle morning sickness very well.) Sometimes fanfic even breaks into the cultural mainstream: E.L. James’ bestselling Fifty Shades of Grey started out as fan fiction set in the world of Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series.

So fanfic is a genuine cultural phenomenon—hence its fascination for Simon DeDeo, a complexity scientist at Carnegie Mellon University and the Santa Fe Institute who studies cultural evolution and the emergence of social hierarchies. (I reported on DeDeo’s work analyzing the archives of London’s Old Bailey in 2014.) While opinion remains split—even among the authors of the original works—as to whether fanfic is a welcome homage to the original works that just might help drive book sales or whether it constitutes a form of copyright infringement, DeDeo enthusiastically embraces the format.

“It’s the dark matter of creativity,” DeDeo told Ars. “I love that it exists. It’s a very non-elitist form. There’s no New York Times bestseller list. It would be hard to name the most famous fan fiction writers. The world building has been done. The characters exist. The plot elements have already been put together. So the bar to entry is lower. Maybe sometime in the 19th century we get a notion of genius and the individual creator, but that’s not really what storytelling has been about for the majority of human history. In that one sense, fan fiction is closer to what we were doing around the campfire.”

spock lying down in sick bay while kirk holds his hand tenderly at his bedside — *Star Trek* arguably spawned contemporary fan fiction—including stories imagining Kirk and Spock as romantic partners. Credit: Paramount Pictures

That’s a boon for fanfic writers, most of whom have non-creative day jobs; fanfic provides them with a creative outlet. Every year, when DeDeo asks students in his classes whether they read and/or write fanfic, a significant percentage always raise their hands. (He once asked a woman about why she wrote slash. Her response: “Because no one was writing porn that I wanted to read.”) In fact, that’s how this current study came about. Co-author Elise Jing is one of DeDeo’s former students with a background in both science and the humanities—and she’s also a fanfic connoisseur.

Give them more of the same

Jing thought (and DeDeo concurred) that the fanfic subculture provided an excellent laboratory for studying cultural evolution. “It’s tough to get students to read a book. They write fan fiction voluntarily. This is stuff they care about writing and care about reading. Nobody gets prestige or power in the larger society from writing fan fiction,” said DeDeo. “This is not a top-down model where Hollywood is producing something and then the fans are consuming it. The fans are producing and consuming so it’s a truly self-contained culture that’s constantly evolving. It’s a pure product consumption cycle. People read it, they bookmark it, they write comments on it, and all that gives us insight into how it’s being received. If you’re a psychologist, you couldn’t pay to get this kind of data.”

Fanfic is a tightly controlled ecosystem, so it lacks many of the confounding factors that make it so difficult to study mainstream cultural works. Also, the fan fiction community is enormous, so the potential datasets are huge. For this study, the authors relied on data from the online Archive of Our Own (AO3), which boasts nearly 9 million users covering more than 70,000 different fandoms and some 15 million individual works. (Sadly, the site has since shut down access to its data over concerns of that data being used to train AI.)

According to DeDeo, the idea was to examine the question of cultural evolution on a population level, rather than on the individual level: “How do these individual things agglomerate to produce the culture? “

Strong positive correlation is found between the response variables except for the Kudos-to-hits ratio. Topic novelty is weakly positively correlated with Kudos-to-hits ratio, but negatively correlated with the other response variables. — Strong positive correlation is found between the response variables except for the Kudos-to-hits ratio. Topic novelty is weakly positively correlated with Kudos-to-hits ratio but negatively correlated with the other response variables. Credit: E. Jing et al., 2025

The results were striking. AO3 members overwhelmingly preferred familiarity in their fan fiction, i.e., more of the same. One notable exception was a short story that was both hugely popular and highly novel. Simply titled “I Am Groot,” the story featured the character from Guardians of the Galaxy. The text is just “I am Groot” repeated 40,000 times—a stroke of genius in that this is entirely consistent with the canonical MCU character, whose entire dialogue consists of those words, with meaning conveyed by shifts of tone and context. But such exceptions proved to be very rare.

“We were so stunned that balance theory wasn’t working,” said DeDeo, who credits Jing with the realization that they were dealing with two distinct pieces of the puzzle: how much is being consumed, and how much people like what they consume, i.e., enjoyment. Their analysis revealed, first, that people really don’t want an optimized mix of familiar and new; they want the same thing over and over again, even within the fanfic community. But when people do make the effort to try something new, they tend to enjoy it more than just consuming more of the same.

In short, “We are anti-balance theory,” said DeDeo. “In biology, for example, you make a small variation in the species and you get micro-evolution. In culture, a minor variation is just less likely to be consumed. So it really is a mystery how we evolve at all culturally; it’s not happening by gradual movement. We can see that there’s novelty. We can see that when people encounter novelty, they enjoy it. But we can’t quite make sense of how these two competing effects work out.”

“This is the great paradox,” said DeDeo. “Culture has to be stable. Without long-term stability, there’s no coherent body of work that can even constitute of culture if every year fan fiction totally changes. That inherent cultural conservatism is in some sense a precondition for culture to exist at all.” Yet culture does evolve, even within the fanfic community.

One possible alternative is some kind of punctuated equilibrium model for cultural evolution, in which things remain stable but undergo occasional leaps forward. “One story about how culture evolves is that eventually, the stuff that’s more enjoyable than what people keep re-consuming somehow becomes accessible to the majority of the community,” said DeDeo. “Novelty might act as a gravitational pull on the center and [over time] some new material gets incorporated into the culture.” He draws an analogy to established tech companies like IBM versus startups, most of which die out; but those few that succeed often push the culture substantially forward.

Perhaps there are two distinct groups of people: those who actively seek out new things and those who routinely click on familiar subject matter because even though their enjoyment might be less, it’s not worth overcoming their inertia to try out something new. Perhaps it is those who seek novelty that sow the seeds of eventual shifts in trends.

“Is it that we’re tired? Is it that we’re lazy? Is this a conflict within a human or within a culture?” said DeDeo. “We don’t know because we only get the raw numbers. If we could track an individual reader to see how they moved between these two spaces, that would be really interesting.”

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2025. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05166-3 (About DOIs).

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.

Fanfic study challenges leading cultural evolution theory Read More »

Rough road to “energy dominance” after GOP kneecaps wind and solar

clean energy, fossil fuels, Science, solar, syndication / Kelly Newman / July 16, 2025

Experts argue that Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act will increase costs for consumers.

As the One Big Beautiful Bill Act squeaked its way through Congress earlier this month, its supporters heralded what they described as a new era for American energy and echoed what has become a familiar phrase among President Donald Trump’s supporters.

“Congress has taken decisive action to advance President Trump’s energy dominance agenda,” said American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers in a statement after the House passed the bill.

Republicans concurred, with legislators ranging from Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky releasing statements after the bill’s passage championing its role in securing “energy dominance.”

The idea and rhetoric of energy dominance has its roots in the first Trump administration, although a formal definition for the phrase is hard to come by. When Trump signed an executive order this February establishing the National Energy Dominance Council, he included expanding energy production, lowering prices and reducing reliance on foreign entities among the council’s goals, while also emphasizing the importance of oil production and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

The phrase has become something of a battle cry among the president’s supporters, with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin writing in the Washington Examiner on July 8 that “Trump is securing America’s energy future in a modern-day version of how our Founding Fathers secured our freedom.”

“Through American energy dominance, we’re not just powering homes and businesses,” Zeldin said. “We’re Powering the Great American Comeback.”

But despite claims from Republican officials and the fossil fuel industry that the megabill will help secure energy dominance, some experts worry that the legislation’s cuts to wind and solar actually undermine those goals at a time when electricity demand is rising, limiting America’s ability to add new generation capacity, raising prices for consumers and ceding global leadership in the clean energy transition.

Dan O’Brien, a senior modeling analyst at the climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, said the bill will increase domestic production of oil and gas by increasing lease sales for drilling—mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, onshore and in Alaska, O’Brien said.

A January study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute reported that a legislatively directed offshore oil and natural gas leasing program, which API says is similar to the measures included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act months later, would increase oil and natural gas production by 140,000 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day by 2034.

That number would rise to 510,000 BOE per day by 2040, the study says.

Losses likely to outweigh the gains

However, O’Brien said the gains America can expect from the fossil fuel industry pale in comparison to losses from renewable energy.

Energy Innovation’s analysis projects that less than 20 gigawatts of additional generation capacity from fossil fuels can be expected by 2035 as a result of the bill, compared to a decrease of more than 360 gigawatts in additional capacity from renewable energy.

The difference between those numbers—a decrease of 344 gigawatts—is roughly equivalent to the energy use of about 100 million homes, O’Brien said.

According to O’Brien, if the One Big Beautiful Bill had not been passed, the US could have expected to add around 1,000 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity in the next 10 years.

But as a result of the bill, “around a third of that will be lost,” O’Brien said.

Those losses largely stem from the bill’s rollback of incentives for wind and solar projects.

“Solar and wind are subject to different—and harsher—treatment under the OBBB than other technologies,” according to the law firm Latham & Watkins. Tax credits for those projects are now set to phase out on a significantly faster timeline, rolling back some of the commitments promised under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Lucero Marquez, the associate director for federal climate policy at the Center for American Progress, said that removing those incentives undercuts America’s ability to achieve its energy needs.

“America needs affordable, reliable, and domestically produced energy, which wind and solar does,” Marquez said. “Gutting clean energy incentives really just does not help meet those goals.”

New projects will also be subject to rules “primarily intended to prevent Chinese companies from claiming the tax credits and to reduce reliance on China for supply chains of clean energy technologies,” the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in an explainer.

However, those rules are “extremely complex” and could lead to “decreased U.S. manufacturing and increased Chinese dominance in these supply chains, contrary to their goal,” according to the think tank.

Surging energy prices

O’Brien said Energy Innovation’s modeling suggests that the loss in additional generation capacity from renewable energies will lead existing power plants, which are more expensive to run than new renewable energy projects would have been, to run more frequently to offset the lack of generation from wind and solar projects not coming online.

The consequences of that, according to O’Brien, are that energy prices will rise, which also means the amount of energy produced will go down in response to decreased demand for the more expensive supply.

An analysis by the REPEAT Project from the Princeton ZERO Lab and Evolved Energy Research similarly predicted increased energy prices for consumers as a result of the bill.

According to that analysis, average household energy costs will increase by over $280 per year by 2035, a more than 13 percent hike.

One of the authors of that analysis, Princeton University professor Jesse D. Jenkins, did not respond to interview requests for this article but previously wrote in an email to Inside Climate News that Republicans’ claims about securing energy dominance through the bill “don’t hold up.”

In an emailed statement responding to questions about those analyses and how their findings align with the administration’s goals of attaining energy dominance, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers wrote that “since Day One, President Trump has taken decisive steps to unleash American energy, which has driven oil production and reduced the cost of energy.”

“The One, Big, Beautiful Bill will turbocharge energy production by streamlining operations for maximum efficiency and expanding domestic production capacity,” Rogers wrote, “which will deliver further relief to American families and businesses.”

In an emailed statement, Rep. Guthrie said that the bill “takes critical steps toward both securing our energy infrastructure and bringing more dispatchable power online.”

“Specifically, the bill does this by repairing and beginning to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was drained during the Biden-Harris Administration, and through the creation of the Energy Dominance Financing program to support new investments that unleash affordable and reliable energy,” the Energy and Commerce chairman wrote.

Cullen Hendrix, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, also said that the bill “advances the administration’s stated goal of energy dominance,” but added that it does so “primarily in sunsetting, last-generation technologies, while ceding the renewable energy future to others.”

“It wants lower energy costs at home and more U.S. energy exports abroad—for both economic and strategic reasons … the OBBB delivers on that agenda,” Hendrix said.

Still, Hendrix added that “the United States that emerges from all this may be a bigger player in a declining sector—fossil fuels—and a massively diminished player in a rapidly growing one: renewable energy.”

“It will help promote the Trump administration’s ambitions of fossil dominance (or at least influence) but on pain of helping build a renewable energy sector for the future,” Hendrix wrote. “That is net-negative globally (and locally) from a holistic perspective.”

Adam Hersh, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, argued that he sees a lot in the bill “that is going to move us in the opposite direction from energy dominance.”

“They should have named this bill the ‘Energy Inflation Act,’ because what it’s going to mean is less energy generated and higher costs for households and for businesses, and particularly manufacturing businesses,” Hersh said.

Hersh also said that even if the bill does lead to increased exports of US-produced energy, that would have a direct negative impact on costs for consumers at home.

“That’s only going to increase domestic prices for energy, and this has long been known and why past administrations have been reluctant to expand exports of LNG,” Hersh said. “That increased demand for the products and competition for the resources will mean higher energy prices for U.S. consumers and businesses.”

“Pushing against energy dominance”

Frank Maisano, a senior principal at the lobbying firm Bracewell LLP, said that although the bill creates important opportunities for things such as oil and gas leasing and the expansion of geothermal and hydrogen energy, the bill’s supporters “undercut themselves” by limiting opportunities for growth in wind and solar.

“The Biden folks tried to lean heavily onto the energy transition because they wanted to limit emissions,” Maisano said. “They wanted to push oil and gas out and push renewables in.”

Now, “these guys are doing the opposite, which is to push oil and gas and limit wind and solar,” Maisano said. “Neither of those strategies are good strategies. You need to have a combination of all these strategies and all these generation sources, especially on the electricity side, to make it work and to meet the challenges that we face.”

Samantha Gross, director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security and Climate Initiative, said that while she isn’t concerned about whether the US will build enough electricity generation to meet the needs of massive consumers like data centers and AI, she is worried that the bill pushes the next generation of that growth further towards fossil fuels.

“I don’t think energy dominance—not just right this instant, but going forward—is just in fossil fuels,” Gross said.

Even beyond the One Big Beautiful Bill, Gross said that many of the administration’s actions run counter to their stated objectives on energy.

“You hear all this talk about energy dominance, but for me it’s just a phrase, because a lot of things that the administration is actually doing are pushing against energy dominance,” Gross said.

“If you think about the tariff policy, for instance, ‘drill, baby, drill’ and a 50 percent tariff on pipeline steel do not go together. Those are pulling in completely opposite directions.”

Aside from domestic energy needs, Gross also worried that the pullback from renewable energy will harm America’s position on the global stage.

“It’s pretty clear which way the world is going,” Gross said. “I worry that we’re giving up … I don’t like the term ‘energy dominance,’ but future leadership in the world’s energy supply by pulling back from those.”

“We’re sort of ceding those technologies to China in a way that is very frustrating to me.”

Yet even in the wake of the bill’s passage, some experts see hope for the future of renewable energy in the US.

Kevin Book, managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners, said that the bill “sets up a slower, shallower transition” toward renewable energy. However, he added that he doesn’t think it represents the end of that transition.

“Most of the capacity we’re adding to our grid in America these days is renewable, and it’s not simply because of federal incentives,” Book said. “So if you take away those federal incentives, there were still economic drivers.”

Still, Book said that the final impacts of the Trump administration’s actions on renewable energy are yet to be seen.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is not the end of the story,” Book said. “There’s more coming, either regulatorily and/or legislatively.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Rough road to “energy dominance” after GOP kneecaps wind and solar Read More »

There could be “dark main sequence” stars at the galactic center

astronomy, astrophysics, Dark Matter, main sequence, Science, star evolution, stars / Mike M. / July 16, 2025

Dark matter particle and antiparticle collisions could make some stars immortal.

For a star, its initial mass is everything. It determines how quickly it burns through its hydrogen and how it will evolve once it starts fusing heavier elements. It’s so well understood that scientists have devised a “main sequence” that acts a bit like a periodic table for stars, correlating their mass and age with their properties.

The main sequence, however, is based on an assumption that’s almost always true: All of the energy involved comes from the gravity-driven fusion of lighter elements into heavier ones. However, three astrophysicists consider an alternative source of energy that may apply at the very center of our galaxy— energy released when dark matter particles and antiparticles collide and annihilate. While we don’t even know that dark matter can do that, it’s a hypothetical with some interesting consequences, like seemingly immortal stars, and others that move backward along the main sequence path.

Dark annihilations

We haven’t figured out what dark matter is, but there are lots of reasons to think that it is comprised of elementary particles. And, if those behave like all of the particles we understand well, then there will be both regular and antimatter versions. Should those collide, they should annihilate each other, releasing energy in the process. Given dark matter’s general propensity not to interact with anything, these collisions will be extremely rare except in locations with very high dark matter concentrations.

The only place that’s likely to happen is at the very center of our galaxy. And, for a while, there was an excess of radiation coming from the galactic core that people thought might be due to dark matter annihilations, although it eventually turned out to have a more mundane explanation.

At the extreme densities found within a light year of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, concentrations are high enough that these collisions could be a major source of energy. And so astronomers have considered what all that energy might do to stars that end up in a black hole’s orbit, finding that under the right circumstances, dark matter destruction could provide more energy to a star than fusion.

That prompted three astrophysicists (Isabelle John, Rebecca Leane, and Tim Linden) to try to look at things in an organized fashion, modeling a “dark main sequence” of stars as they might exist within a close proximity to the Milky Way’s center.

The intense gravity and radiation found near the galaxy’s core mean that stars can’t form there. So, anything that’s in a tight orbit had formed somewhere else before gravitational interactions had pushed it into the gravitational grasp of the galaxy’s central black hole. The researchers used a standard model of star evolution to build a collection of moderate-sized stars, from one to 20 solar masses at 0.05 solar mass intervals. These are allowed to ignite fusion at their cores and then shift into a dark-matter-rich environment.

Since we have no idea how often dark matter particles might run into each other, John, Leane, and Linden use two different collision frequencies. These determine how much energy is imparted into these stars by dark matter, which the researchers simply add as a supplement to the amount of fusion energy the stars are producing. Then, the stars are allowed to evolve forward in time.

(The authors note that stars that are thrown into the grasp of a supermassive black hole tend to have very eccentric orbits, so they spend a lot of time outside the zone where dark matter collisions take place with a significant frequency. So, what they’ve done is the equivalent of having these stars experience the energy input given their average orbital distance from the galaxy’s core. In reality, a star would spend some years with higher energy input and some years with lower input as it moves about its orbit.)

Achieving immortality

The physics of what happens is based on the same balance of forces that govern fusion-powered stars, but produces some very strange results. Given only fusion power, a star will exist at a balance point. If gravity compresses it, fusion speeds up, more energy is released, and that energy causes the star to expand outward again. That causes the density drop, slowing fusion back down again.

The dark matter annihilations essentially provide an additional source of energy that stays constant regardless of what happens to the star’s density. At the low end of the mass range the researchers considered, this can cause the star to nearly shut off fusion, essentially looking like a far younger star than it actually is. That has the effect of causing the star to move backward along the main sequence diagram.

The researchers note that even lighter stars could essentially get so much additional energy that they can’t hold together and end up dissipating, something that’s been seen in models run by other researchers.

As the mass gets higher, stars reach the point where they essentially give up on fusion and get by with nothing but dark matter annihilations. They have enough mass to hold together gravitationally, but end up too diffused for fusion to continue. And they’ll stay that way as long as they continue to get additional injections of energy. “A star like this might look like a young, still-forming star,” the authors write, “but has features of a star that has undergone nuclear fusion in the past and is effectively immortal.”

John, Leane, and Linden find that the higher mass stars remain dense enough for fusion to continue even in proximity to the galaxy’s black hole. But the additional energy kept that fusion happening at a moderate rate. They proceeded through the main sequence, but at a pace that was exceptionally slow, so that running the simulation for a total of 10 billion years didn’t see them change significantly.

The other strange thing here is that all of this is very sensitive to how much dark matter annihilation is taking place. A star that’s “immortal” at one average distance will progress slowly through the main sequence if its average distance is a light year further out. Similarly, stars that are too light to survive at one location will hold together if they are a bit further from the supermassive black hole.

Is there anything to this?

The big caution is that this work only looks at the average input from dark matter annihilation. In reality, a star that might be immortal at its average distance will likely spend a few years too hot to hold together, and then several years cooling off in conditions that should allow fusion to reignite. It would be nice to see a model run with this sort of pulsed input, perhaps basing it on the orbits of some of the stars we’ve seen that get close to the Milky Way’s central black hole.

In the meantime, John, Leane, and Linden write that their results are consistent with some of the oddities that are apparent in the stars we’ve observed at the galaxy’s center. These have two distinctive properties: They appear heavier than the average star in the Milky Way, and all seem to be quite young. If there is a “dark main sequence,” then the unusual heft can be explained simply by the fact that lower mass stars end up dissipating due to the additional energy. And the model would suggest that these stars simply appear to be young because they haven’t undergone much fusion.

The researchers suggest that we could have a clearer picture if we were able to spend enough time observing the stars at our galaxy’s core with a large enough telescope, allowing us to understand their nature and orbits.

Physical Review D, 2025. DOI: Not yet available (About DOIs).

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.

There could be “dark main sequence” stars at the galactic center 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 »

Medieval preacher invoked chivalric hero as a meme in sermon

Chaucer, cultural studies, culture, historical archaelogy, history, language history, Literature, medieval literature, Science, textual analysis / 9u50fv / July 16, 2025

It’s the translation of the word “elves” that is central to their new analysis. Based on their consideration of the lines in the context of the sermon (dubbed the Humiliamini sermon) as a whole, Falk and Wade believe the correct translation is “wolves.” The confusion arose, they suggest, because of a scribe’s error while transcribing the sermon: specifically, the letters “y” (“ylves”) and “w” became muddled. The sermon focuses on humility, playing up how humans have been debased since Adam and comparing human behaviors to animals: the cunning deceit of the adder, for example, the pride of lions, the gluttony of pigs, or the plundering of wolves.

the text of the sermon — The text of the sermon. Credit: University of Cambridge

Falk and Wade think translating the word as “wolves” resolves some of the perplexity surrounding Chaucer’s references to Wade. The relevant passage in Troilus and Criseyde concerns Pandarus, uncle to Criseyde, who invites his niece to dinner and regales her with songs and the “tale of Wade,” in hopes of bringing the lovers together. A chivalric romance would serve this purpose better than a Germanic heroic epic evoking “the mythological sphere of giants and monsters,” the authors argue.

The new translation makes more sense of the reference in The Merchant’s Tale, too, in which an old knight argues for marrying a young woman rather than an older one because the latter are crafty and spin fables. The knight thus marries a much younger woman and ends up cuckolded. “The tale becomes, effectively, an origin myth for all women knowing ‘so muchel craft on Wades boot,'” the authors wrote.

And while they acknowledge that the evidence is circumstantial, Falk and Wade think they’ve identified the author of the Humiliamini sermon: late medieval writer Alexander Neckam, or perhaps an acolyte imitating his arguments and writing style.

Review of English Studies, 2025. DOI: 10.1093/res/hgaf038 (About DOIs).

Medieval preacher invoked chivalric hero as a meme in sermon 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 »