Space

US House takes first step toward creating “commercial” deep space program

Commercial, congress, deep space transportation, NASA, new glenn, Space, starship / Beth Washington / February 4, 2026

A US House committee with oversight of NASA unanimously passed a “reauthorization” act for the space agency on Wednesday. The legislation must still be approved by the full House before being sent to the Senate, which may take up consideration later this month.

Congress passes such reauthorization bills every couple of years, providing the space agency with a general sense of the direction legislators want to see NASA go. They are distinct from appropriations bills, which provide actual funding for specific programs, but nonetheless play an important role in establishing space policy.

There weren’t any huge surprises in the legislation, but there were some interesting amendments. Most notably among these was the Amendment No. 01, offered by the chair of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), as well as its ranking member, Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and three other legislators.

NASA can consider Artemis alternatives

The amendment concerns acquisition powers bestowed upon NASA by Congress, stating in part: “The Administrator may, subject to appropriations, procure from United States commercial providers operational services to carry cargo and crew safely, reliably, and affordably to and from deep space destinations, including the Moon and Mars.”

That language is fairly general in nature, but the intent seems clear. NASA’s initial missions to the Moon, through Artemis V, have a clearly defined architecture: They must use the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and a lander built by either SpaceX or Blue Origin to complete lunar landings.

But after that? With this amendment, Congress appears to be opening the aperture to commercial companies. That is to say, if SpaceX wanted to bid an end-to-end Starship lunar mission, it could; or if Blue Origin wanted to launch Orion on New Glenn, that is also an option. The language is generalized enough, not specifying “launch” but rather “transportation,” that in-space companies such as Impulse Space could also get creative. Essentially, Congress is telling the US industry that if it is ready to step up, NASA should allow it to bid on lunar cargo and crew missions.

US House takes first step toward creating “commercial” deep space program Read More »

Russian spy satellites have intercepted EU communications satellites

espionage, Luch-2, russia, satellites, Space, space warfare, syndication / 9u50fv / February 4, 2026

Those thrusters could also be used to knock satellites out of alignment or even cause them to crash back to Earth or drift into space.

Intelligence gathered by Luch 1 and 2 could also help Russia coordinate less overt attacks on Western interests. Monitoring other satellites can reveal who is using them and where—information that could later be exploited for targeted ground-based jamming or hacking operations.

The Luch vehicles were “maneuvring about and parking themselves close to geostationary satellites, often for many months at a time,” said Belinda Marchand, chief science officer at Slingshot Aerospace, a US-based company that tracks objects in space using ground-based sensors and artificial intelligence.

She added that Luch 2 was currently “in proximity” to Intelsat 39, a large geostationary satellite that services Europe and Africa.

Since its launch in 2023, Luch-2 has hovered near at least 17 other geostationary satellites above Europe serving both commercial and government purposes, Slingshot data shows.

“They have visited the same families, the same operators—so you can deduce that they have a specific purpose or interest,” said Norbert Pouzin, senior orbital analyst at Aldoria, a French satellite tracking company that has also shadowed the Luch satellites. “These are all Nato-based operators.”

“Even if they cannot decrypt messages, they can still extract a lot of information… they can map how a satellite is being used, work out the location of ground terminals, for example,” he added.

Pouzin also said that Russia now seemed to be ramping up its reconnaissance activity in space, launching two new satellites last year named Cosmos 2589 and Cosmos 2590. The vehicles appear to have similarly maneuvrable capabilities to Luch-1 and Luch-2.

Cosmos 2589 is now on its way to the same range as geostationary satellites, which orbit 35,000 km above Earth, Pouzin said.

But Luch-1 may no longer be functional. On January 30, Earth telescopes observed what appeared to be a plume of gas coming from the satellite. Shortly after, it appeared to at least partially fragment.

“It looks like it began with something to do with the propulsion,” said Marchand, adding that afterwards there “was certainly a fragmentation,” and the satellite was “still tumbling.”

Russian spy satellites have intercepted EU communications satellites Read More »

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket

NASA, nasa rocket, Space, space launch system / DJ Henderson / February 4, 2026

“You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.”

The Artemis II mission is not going to the Moon this month. Credit: NASA

The Space Launch System rocket program is now a decade and a half old, and it continues to be dominated by two unfortunate traits: It is expensive, and it is slow.

The massive rocket and its convoluted ground systems, so necessary to baby and cajole the booster’s prickly hydrogen propellant on board, have cost US taxpayers in excess of $30 billion to date. And even as it reaches maturity, the rocket is going nowhere fast.

You remember the last time NASA tried to launch the world’s largest orange rocket, right? The space agency rolled the Space Launch System out of its hangar in March 2022. The first, second, and third attempts at a wet dress rehearsal—elaborate fueling tests—were scrubbed. The SLS rocket was slowly rolled back to its hangar for work in April before returning to the pad in June.

The fourth fueling test also ended early but this time reached to within 29 seconds of when the engines would ignite. This was not all the way to the planned T-9.3 seconds, a previously established gate to launch the vehicle. Nevertheless mission managers had evidently had enough of failed fueling tests. Accordingly, they proceeded into final launch preparations.

The first launch attempt (effectively the fifth wet-dress test), in late August, was scrubbed due to hydrogen leaks and other problems. A second attempt, a week later, also succumbed to hydrogen leaks. Finally, on the next attempt, and seventh overall try at fully fueling and nursing this vehicle through a countdown, the Space Launch System rocket actually took off. After doing so, it flew splendidly.

That was November 16, 2022. More than three years ago. You might think that over the course of the extended interval since then, and after the excruciating pain of spending nearly an entire year conducting fueling tests to try to lift the massive rocket off the pad, some of the smartest engineers in the world, the fine men and women at NASA, would have dug into and solved the leak issues.

You would be wrong.

The second go-round also does not unfold smoothly

On Monday, after rolling the SLS rocket to be used for the Artemis II mission to the pad in January, NASA attempted its first wet-dress test with this new vehicle. At one of the main interfaces where liquid hydrogen enters the vehicle, a leak developed, not dissimilar to problems that occurred with the Artemis I rocket three years ago.

NASA has developed several ploys to mitigate the leak. These include varying the rate of hydrogen, which is very cold, flowing into the vehicle. At times they also stopped this flow, hoping the seals at the interface between the ground equipment and the rocket would warm up and “re-seat,” thereby halting the leaks. It worked—sort of. After several hours of troubleshooting, the vehicle was fully loaded. Finally, running about four hours late on their timeline, the dogged countdown team at Kennedy Space Center pushed toward the last stages of the countdown.

However, at this critical time, the liquid hydrogen leak rate spiked once again. This led to an automatic abort of the test a little before T-5 minutes. And so ended NASA’s hopes of launching the much-anticipated Artemis II mission, sending four astronauts around the Moon, in February. NASA will now attempt to launch the vehicle no earlier than March following more wet-dress attempts in the interim.

In a news conference on Tuesday afternoon, NASA officials were asked why they had not solved a problem that was so nettlesome during the Artemis I launch campaign.

“After Artemis I, with the challenges we had with the leaks, we took a pretty aggressive approach to do some component-level testing with some of these valves and the seals, and try to understand their behavior,” said John Honeycutt, chair of the Artemis II Mission Management Team. “And so we got a good handle on that relative to how we install the flight-side and the ground-side interface. But on the ground, we’re pretty limited in how much realism we can put into the test. We try to test like we fly, but this interface is a very complex interface. When you’re dealing with hydrogen, it’s a small molecule. It’s highly energetic. We like it for that reason. And we do the best we can.”

If NASA were really going to do the best it could with this rocket, there were options in the last three years. It is common in commercial rocketry to build one or more “test” tanks to both stress the hardware and ensure its compatibility with ground systems through an extensive test campaign. However, SLS hardware is extraordinarily expensive. A single rocket costs in excess of $2 billion, so the program is hardware-poor. Moreover, tanking tests might have damaged the launch tower, which itself cost more than $1 billion. As far as I know, there was never any serious discussion of building a test tank.

Hardware scarcity, due to cost, is but one of several problems with the SLS rocket architecture. Probably the biggest one is its extremely low flight rate, which makes every fueling and launch opportunity an experimental rather than operational procedure. This has been pointed out to NASA, and the rocket’s benefactors in Congress, for more than a decade. A rocket that is so expensive it only flies rarely will have super-high operating costs and ever-present safety concerns precisely because it flies so infrequently.

Acknowledging the low flight rate issue

Until this week, NASA had largely ignored these concerns, at least in public. However, in a stunning admission, NASA’s new administrator, Jared Isaacman, acknowledged the flight-rate issue after Monday’s wet-dress rehearsal test failed to reach a successful conclusion. “The flight rate is the lowest of any NASA-designed vehicle, and that should be a topic of discussion,” he said as part of a longer post about the test on social media.

The reality, which Isaacman knows full well, and which almost everyone else in the industry recognizes, is that the SLS rocket is dead hardware walking. The Trump administration would like to fly the rocket just two more times, culminating in the Artemis III human landing on the Moon. Congress has passed legislation mandating a fourth and fifth launch of the SLS vehicle.

However, one gets the sense that this battle is not yet fully formed, and the outcome will depend on hiccups like Monday’s aborted test; the ongoing performance of the rocket in flight; and how quickly SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s New Glenn vehicle make advancements toward reliability. Both of these private rockets are moving at light speed relative to NASA’s Slow Launch System.

During the news conference, I asked about this low flight rate and the challenge of managing a complex rocket that will never be more than anything but an experimental system. The answer from NASA’s top civil servant, Amit Kshatriya, was eye-opening.

“You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time between the first and second,” NASA’s associate administrator said. “It is going to be experimental, because of going to the Moon in this configuration, with the energies we’re dealing with. And every time we do it these are very bespoke components, they’re in many cases made by incredible craftsmen. … It’s the first time this particular machine has borne witness to cryogens, and how it breathes, and how it vents, and how it wants to leak is something we have to characterize. And so every time we do it, we’re going to have to do that separately.”

So there you have it. Every SLS rocket is a work of art, every launch campaign an adventure, every mission subject to excessive delays. It’s definitely not ideal.

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket Read More »

SpaceX acquires xAI, plans 1 million satellite constellation to power it

orbital data centers, Space, spacex, xAI / Mike M. / February 2, 2026

SpaceX has formally acquired another of Elon Musk’s companies, xAi, the space company announced on Monday afternoon.

“SpaceX has acquired xAI to form the most ambitious, vertically-integrated innovation engine on (and off) Earth, with AI, rockets, space-based internet, direct-to-mobile device communications and the world’s foremost real-time information and free speech platform,” the company said. “This marks not just the next chapter, but the next book in SpaceX and xAI’s mission: scaling to make a sentient sun to understand the Universe and extend the light of consciousness to the stars!”

The merging of what is arguably Musk’s most successful company, SpaceX, with the more speculative xAI venture is a risk. But Musk strongly believes that artificial intelligence is central to humanity’s future and wants to be among those leading in its development.

With this merger, he 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. This will provide the backbone of computing power needed to support xAI’s operations.

“This new constellation will build upon the well-established space sustainability design and operational strategies, including end-of-life disposal, that have proven successful for SpaceX’s existing broadband satellite systems,” Musk wrote in an email to employees on Monday.

This is a developing story, and it will be updated.

SpaceX acquires xAI, plans 1 million satellite constellation to power it Read More »

US spy satellite agency declassifies high-flying Cold War listening post

Boeing, classified, Hughes, military space, National Reconnaissance Office, sigint, Space / Kelly Newman / January 31, 2026

The National Reconnaissance Office, the agency overseeing the US government’s fleet of spy satellites, has declassified a decades-old program used to eavesdrop on the Soviet Union’s military communication signals.

The program was codenamed Jumpseat, and its existence was already public knowledge through leaks and contemporary media reports. What’s new is the NRO’s description of the program’s purpose and development and pictures of the satellites themselves.

In a statement, the NRO called Jumpseat “the United States’ first-generation, highly elliptical orbit (HEO) signals-collection satellite.”

Scooping up signals

Eight Jumpseat satellites launched from 1971 through 1987, when the US government considered the very existence of the National Reconnaissance Office a state secret. Jumpseat satellites operated until 2006. Their core mission was “monitoring adversarial offensive and defensive weapon system development,” the NRO said. “Jumpseat collected electronic emissions and signals, communication intelligence, as well as foreign instrumentation intelligence.”

Data intercepted by the Jumpseat satellites flowed to the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and “other national security elements,” the NRO said.

The Soviet Union was the primary target for Jumpseat intelligence collections. The satellites flew in highly elliptical orbits ranging from a few hundred miles up to 24,000 miles (39,000 kilometers) above the Earth. The satellites’ flight paths were angled such that they reached apogee, the highest point of their orbits, over the far Northern Hemisphere. Satellites travel slowest at apogee, so the Jumpseat spacecraft loitered high over the Arctic, Russia, Canada, and Greenland for most of the 12 hours it took them to complete a loop around the Earth.

This trajectory gave the Jumpseat satellites persistent coverage over the Arctic and the Soviet Union, which first realized the utility of such an orbit. The Soviet government began launching communication and early warning satellites into the same type of orbit a few years before the first Jumpseat mission launched in 1971. The Soviets called the orbit Molniya, the Russian word for lightning.

A Jumpseat satellite before launch. Credit: National Reconnaissance Office

The name Jumpseat was first revealed in a 1986 book by the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh on the Soviet Union’s 1983 shoot-down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Hersh wrote that the Jumpseat satellites could “intercept all kinds of communications,” including voice messages between Soviet ground personnel and pilots.

US spy satellite agency declassifies high-flying Cold War listening post Read More »

Here’s why Blue Origin just ended its suborbital space tourism program

blue origin, new glenn, new shepard, Space / DJ Henderson / January 30, 2026

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.

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.

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 Friday afternoon. “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.”

Move was a surprise

The cancellation came, generally, as a surprise to Blue Origin employees. The company flew its most recent mission eight days ago, launching six people into space. Moreover, the company has four new boosters in various stages of development as well as two new capsules under construction. Blue Origin has been selling human flights for more than a year and is still commanding a per-seat price of approximately $1 million based on recent sales. It was talking about expansion to new spaceports in September.

Still, there have always been questions about the program’s viability. In November 2023, Ars published an article asking how long Bezos would continue to subsidize the New Shepard program, which at the time was “hemorrhaging” money. Sources indicate the program has gotten closer to breaking even, but it remains a drain on Blue Origin’s efforts.

About 400 people spend part or all of their time working on New Shepard, but it also draws on other resources within the company. Although it is a small fraction of the company’s overall workforce, it is nonetheless a distraction from the company’s long-term ambitions to build settlements in space where millions of people will live, work, and help move industrial activity off Earth and into orbit.

Here’s why Blue Origin just ended its suborbital space tourism program Read More »

NASA faces a crucial choice on a Mars spacecraft—and it must decide soon

blue origin, Mars, mars telecommunications orbiter, NASA, rocket lab, Space, spacex / Shannon Garcia / January 30, 2026

However, some leaders within NASA see the language in the Cruz legislation as spelling out a telecommunications orbiter only and believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, to run a procurement competition between now and September 30th for anything beyond a straightforward communications orbiter.

In a statement provided to Ars by a NASA spokesperson, the agency said that is what it intends to do.

“NASA will procure a high-performance Mars telecommunications orbiter that will provide robust, continuous communications for Mars missions,” a spokesperson said. “NASA looks forward to collaborating with our commercial partners to advance deep space communications and navigation capabilities, strengthening US leadership in Mars infrastructure and the commercial space sector.”

Big decisions loom

Even so, sources said Isaacman has yet to decide whether the orbiter should include scientific instruments. NASA could also tap into other funding in its fiscal year 2026 budget, which included $110 million for unspecified “Mars Future Missions,” as well as a large wedge of funding that could potentially be used to support a Mars commercial payload delivery program.

The range of options before NASA, therefore, includes asking industry for a single telecom orbiter from one company, asking for a telecom orbiter with the capability to add a couple of instruments, or creating competition by asking for multiple orbiters and capabilities by tapping into the $700 million in the Cruz bill but then augmenting this with other Mars funding.

One indication that this process has been muddied within NASA came a week ago, when the space agency briefly posted a “Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition, Extension” notice on a government website. It stated that the agency “will only conduct a competition among vendors that satisfy the statutory qualifications.” The notice also listed the companies eligible to bid based on the Cruz language: Blue Origin, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rocket Lab, SpaceX, Quantum Space, and Whittinghill Aerospace.

NASA faces a crucial choice on a Mars spacecraft—and it must decide soon Read More »

Rocket Report: How a 5-ton satellite fell off a booster; will SpaceX and xAI merge?

rocket report, Space / 9u50fv / January 30, 2026

ESA to study Falcon 9 breakup over Poland. The European Space Agency has published a call to tender for a study examining the reentry and breakup of a SpaceX Falcon 9 upper stage in February last year, European Spaceflight reports. In the early hours of February 19, 2025, a Falcon 9 second stage underwent an uncontrolled atmospheric re-entry over Poland. At least four fragments of the stage survived re-entry and landed in various locations across the country. While no one was injured and no property was damaged, at least one fragment landed in a populated area.

Not just an academic study … ESA hopes to use data collected during the reentry of the Falcon 9 upper stage over Poland to help predict the risks associated with the re-entry of elongated upper stages. There are currently considerable uncertainties surrounding the physics and dynamics of destructive reentry in the very low-Earth orbit regime, below 150km. It’s not an academic study, as in 2015 there were approximately 80 orbital rocket launches. A decade on, that figure has almost quadrupled, with 317 successful orbital rocket launches occurring in 2025. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

SpaceX targets mid-March for next Starship launch. The company plans to launch Starship’s next test flight in six weeks, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said Sunday, January 25, Space.com reports. The flight will be the 12th overall for Starship but the first of the bigger, more powerful, and much-anticipated “Version 3” (V3) iteration of the vehicle.

A better engine … Starship V3 is slightly taller than V2—408.1 feet (124.4 meters) vs. 403.9 feet (123.1 m), but considerably more powerful. V3 can loft more than 100 tons of payload to low-Earth orbit, compared to about 35 tons for V2, according to Musk. The increased brawn comes courtesy of Raptor 3, a new variant of the engine that will fly for the first time on the upcoming test mission. SpaceX is hoping it proves more reliable than V2 as well.

Seeking information about Challenger artifacts. Back in 2010, Robert Pearlman of CollectSpace bought a batch of 18 space shuttle-era “Remove Before Flight” tags on eBay. It was only later that he pieced together that these tags were, in fact, removed from the external tank of STS 51-L, the ill-fated flight of space shuttle Challenger in 1986. He wrote about the experience on Ars.

How did they get to eBay? … “When the tags were first identified, contacts at NASA and Lockheed, among others, were unable to explain how they ended up on eBay and, ultimately, with me,” Pearlman said. He wants to gather more information about the provenance of the tags so that he can donate them to museums, with their full backstory.

Next three launches

January 30: Falcon 9 | Starlink 6-101 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 05: 51 UTC

February 2: Falcon 9 | Starlink 17-32 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif. | 15: 17 UTC

February 3: Falcon 9 | Starlink 6-103 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 22: 12 UTC

Rocket Report: How a 5-ton satellite fell off a booster; will SpaceX and xAI merge? Read More »

I bought “Remove Before Flight” tags on eBay in 2010—it turns out they’re from Challenger

40 years, 40th anniversary, Challenger, disaster, eBay, ET-26, external tank, Lockheed Martin, Michoud Assembly Facility, NASA, Remove Before Flight, Space, space artifacts, Space exploration, space history, space memorabilia, Space shuttle, STS-51L, Tag, tragedy / 9u50fv / January 28, 2026

40th anniversary of the Challenger tragedy

“This is an attempt to learn more…”

The stack of 18 “Remove Before Flight” tags as they were clipped together for sale on eBay in 2010. It was not until later that their connection to the Challenger tragedy was learned. Credit: collectSPACE.com

Forty years ago, a stack of bright red tags shared a physical connection with what would become NASA’s first space shuttle disaster. The small tags, however, were collected before the ill-fated launch of Challenger, as was instructed in bold “Remove Before Flight” lettering on the front of each.

What happened to the tags after that is largely unknown.

This is an attempt to learn more about where those “Remove Before Flight” tags went after they were detached from the space shuttle and before they arrived on my doorstep. If their history can be better documented, they can be provided to museums, educational centers, and astronautical archives for their preservation and display.

To begin, we go back 16 years to when they were offered for sale on eBay.

From handout to hold on

The advertisement on the auction website was titled “Space Shuttle Remove Before Flight Flags Lot of 18.” They were listed with an opening bid of $3.99. On January 12, 2010, I paid $5.50 as the winner.

At that point, my interest in the 3-inch-wide by 12-inch-long (7.6 by 30.5 cm) tags was as handouts for kids and other attendees at future events. Whether it was at an astronaut autograph convention, a space memorabilia show, a classroom visit, or a conference talk, having “swag” was a great way to foster interest in space history. At first glance, these flags seemed to be a perfect fit.

So I didn’t pay much attention when they first arrived. The eBay listing had promoted them only as generic examples of “KSC Form 4-226 (6/77)”—the ID the Kennedy Space Center assigned to the tags. There was no mention of their being used, let alone specifying an orbiter or specific flight. If I recall correctly, the seller said his intention had been to use them on his boat.

(Attempts to retrieve the original listing for this article were unsuccessful. As an eBay spokesperson said, “eBay does not retain transaction records or item details dating back over a decade, and therefore we do not have any information to share with you.”)

It was about a year later when I first noticed the ink stamps at the bottom of each tag. They were marked “ET-26” followed by a number. For example, the first tag in the clipped-together stack was stamped “ET-26-000006.”

Bright red tags can be seen attached to a large component of space shuttle hardware. — The same type of “Remove Before Flight” tags that were attached to ET-26 for *Challenger*‘s ill-fated STS-51L mission can be seen on one of the first two external tanks before it was flown, as distinguished by the insulation having been painted white. Credit: NASA via collectSPACE.com

“ET” refers to the External Tank. The largest components of the space shuttle stack, the burnt orange or brown tanks were numbered, so 26 had to be one of the earlier missions of the 30-year, 135-flight program.

A fact sheet prepared by Lockheed Martin provided the answer. The company operated at the Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, where the external tanks were built before being barged to the Kennedy Space Center for launch. Part of the sheet listed each launch with its date and numbered external tank. As my finger traced down the page, it came to STS 61-B, 11/26/85, ET-22; STS 61-C, 1/12/86, ET-30; and then STS 51-L, 1/28/86… ET-26.

Removed but still connected

To be clear, the tags had no role in the loss of Challenger or its crew, including commander Dick Scobee; pilot Mike Smith; mission specialists Ronald McNair, Judith Resnik, and Ellison Onizuka; payload specialist Gregory Jarvis; and Teacher-in-Space Christa McAuliffe. Although the structural failure of the external tank ultimately resulted in Challenger breaking apart, it was a compromised O-ring seal in one of the shuttle’s two solid rocket boosters that allowed hot gas to burn through, impinging the tank.

Further, although it’s still unknown when the tags and their associated ground support equipment (e.g., protective covers, caps) were removed, it was not within hours of the launch, and in many cases, it was completed well before the vehicle reached the pad.

“They were removed later in processing at different times but definitely all done before propellant loading,” said Mike Cianilli, the former manager of NASA’s Apollo, Challenger, Columbia Lessons Learned Program. “To make sure they were gone, final walkdowns and closeouts by the ground crews confirmed removal.”

Close-up view of the liftoff of the space shuttle Challenger on its ill-fated last mission, STS-51L. A cloud of grey-brown smoke can be seen on the right side of the solid rocket booster on a line directly across from the letter “U” in United States. This was the first visible sign that an SRB joint breach may have occurred, leading to the external tank (ET-26) being compromised during its ascent. Credit: NASA

According to NASA, approximately 20 percent of ET-26 was recovered from the ocean floor after the tragedy, and like the parts of the solid rocket boosters and Challenger, they were placed into storage in two retired missile silos at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (today, Space Force Station). Components removed from the vehicle before the ill-fated launch that were no longer needed likely went through the normal surplus processes as overseen by the General Services Administration, said Cianilli.

Once the tags’ association with STS-51L was confirmed, it no longer felt right to use them as giveaways. At least, not to individuals.

There are very few items directly connected to Challenger‘s last flight that museums and other public centers can use to connect their visitors to what transpired 40 years ago. NASA has placed only one piece of Challenger on public display, and that is in the exhibition “Forever Remembered” at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex.

Each of the 50 US states, the Smithsonian, and the president of the United States were also presented with a small American flag and a mission patch that had been aboard Challenger at the time of the tragedy.

Having a more complete history of these tags would help meet the accession requirements of some museums and, if approved, provide curators with the information they need to put the tags on display.

Reconnecting to flight

When the tags were first identified, contacts at NASA and Lockheed, among others, were unable to explain how they ended up on eBay and, ultimately, with me.

It was 2011, and the space shuttle program was coming to its end. I was politely told that this was not the time to ask about the tags, as documents were being moved into archives and, perhaps more importantly, people were more concerned about pending layoffs. One person suggested the tags be put back in a drawer and forgotten about for another decade.

In the years since, other “Remove Before Flight” tags from other space shuttle missions have come up for sale. Some have included evidence that the tags had passed through the surplus procedures; some did not and were offered as is.

Close-up detail of two of the 18 shuttle “Return Before Flight” tags purchased off eBay. All were marked “ET-26” with a serial number. Some included additional stamps and handwritten notations. Most of the latter, though, has bled into the fabric to the point that it can no longer be read. Credit: collectSPACE.com

There were anecdotes about outgoing employees taking home mementos. Maybe someone saw these tags heading out as scrap (or worse, being tossed in the garbage) and, recognizing what they were, saved them from being lost to history. An agent with the NASA Office of Inspector General once said that dumpster diving was not prohibited, so long as the item(s) being dived for were not metal (due to recycling).

More recent attempts to reach people who might know anything about the specific tags have been unsuccessful, other than the few details Cianilli was able to share. An attempt to recontact the eBay seller has so far gone unanswered.

If you or someone you know worked on the external tank at the time of the STS-51L tragedy, or if you’re familiar with NASA’s practices regarding installing, retrieving, and archiving or disposing of the Remove Before Flight tags, please get in contact.

Robert Pearlman is a space historian, journalist and the founder and editor of collectSPACE, a daily news publication and online community focused on where space exploration intersects with pop culture. He is also a contributing writer for Space.com and co-author of “Space Stations: The Art, Science, and Reality of Working in Space” published by Smithsonian Books in 2018. He is on the leadership board for For All Moonkind and is a member of the American Astronautical Society’s history committee.

I bought “Remove Before Flight” tags on eBay in 2010—it turns out they’re from Challenger Read More »

A WB-57 pilot just made a heroic landing in Houston after its landing gear failed

emergency landing, NASA, Space, wb-57 / Shannon Garcia / January 27, 2026

One of NASA’s three large WB-57 aircraft made an emergency landing at Ellington Field on Tuesday morning in southeastern Houston.

Video captured by KHOU 11 television showed the aircraft touching down on the runway without its landing gear extended. The pilot then maintains control of the vehicle as it slides down the runway, slowing the aircraft through friction. The crew was not harmed, NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens said.

WB-57 landing.

“Today, a mechanical issue with one of NASA’s WB-57s resulted in a gear-up landing at Ellington Field,” she said. “Response to the incident is ongoing, and all crew are safe at this time. As with any incident, a thorough investigation will be conducted by NASA into the cause. NASA will transparently update the public as we gather more information.”

The B-57 line of aircraft dates back to 1944, when the English Electric Company began developing the plane. After the Royal Air Force showcased the B-57 in 1951 by crossing the Atlantic in a record four hours and 40 minutes and becoming the first jet-powered aircraft to span the Atlantic without refueling, the United States Air Force began buying them to replace its aging Douglas B-26 Invader.

Now used for science

The aircraft performed bombing missions in Vietnam and other military campaigns, and a variant that later became the WB-57 was designed with longer wings that could fly even higher, up to 62,000 feet. This proved useful for weather reconnaissance and, around the world, to sample the upper atmosphere for evidence of nuclear debris where US officials suspected the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

A WB-57 pilot just made a heroic landing in Houston after its landing gear failed Read More »

Trade wars muzzle allied talks on Trump’s Golden Dome missile shield

golden dome, michael guetlein, military space, missile defense, Science, Space, space force / 9u50fv / January 27, 2026

“International partners, I have not been allowed to talk to yet because of the trade wars.”

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office at the White House on May 20, 2025. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Gen. Michael Guetlein, the senior officer in charge of the US military’s planned Golden Dome missile defense shield, has laid out an audacious schedule for deploying a network of space-based sensors and interceptors by the end of President Donald Trump’s term in the White House.

The three-year timeline is aggressive, with little margin for error in the event of budget or technological setbacks. The shield is designed to defend the US homeland against a range of long-range weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), cruise missiles, and newer threats like hypersonic weapons and drones.

“By the summer of ’28, we will be able to defend the entire nation against ballistic missiles, as well as other generation aerial threats, and we will continue to grow that architecture through 2035,” Guetlein said Friday in a presentation to representatives from the US defense industry.

Supporters of Golden Dome say it is necessary to defend the United States against emerging threats from potential adversaries like Russia and China, each of which has a vast arsenal of ballistic missiles and more maneuverable hypersonic missiles that are difficult to detect and even harder to track and shoot down. Critics cite Golden Dome’s high cost and its potential to disrupt the global order, an eventuality they say would make the US homeland more prone to attack.

Guetlein’s team is moving fast in many areas. The Pentagon has inked deals with companies to develop prototypes for space-based missile interceptors, and Golden Dome is underpinned by billions of dollars of preexisting investment in sensor technology, reusable launchers, and mass-produced satellites.

These investments give Golden Dome a head start that former President Ronald Reagan’s similarly scoped Strategic Defense Initiative lacked in the 1980s. The initiative, nicknamed “Star Wars,” was drastically downsized as the Cold War wound down and the government struggled with ballooning costs and technical roadblocks.

Consequences to the chaos

But progress in at least one important area has stalled on the Golden Dome program. The Pentagon will need cooperation, if not tangible contributions, from allies to create the best possible version of the missile defense shield. Fundamentally, it comes down to geography. Places like the Canadian Arctic and Greenland are well-positioned to detect incoming missiles coming over the horizon from Russia or China. They might also be useful for hosting next-gen ground-based interceptors, which today are based in Alaska and California.

Guetlein said his interactions with allies have been limited. It’s the consequence of another of the Trump administration’s core policies: tariffs.

“International partners, I have not been allowed to talk to yet because of the trade wars,” Guetlein said. “The administration wants to get all that laying flat before I start having conversations with our allied partners. But everything we are doing is allied by design.”

Without detailed discussions with allies, the Pentagon’s Golden Dome appears to be one-sided.

“We are already planning on how to integrate our allied partners into our architecture,” Guetlein said. [We’re] already understanding what they can bring to the fight, whether that be capability, whether that be through FMS (foreign military sales), or whether that be territory that we need to access to put sensors, or what have you.”

Canada and Denmark, which count Greenland as an autonomous territory, are longtime allies of the United States. Both nations are members of NATO, and Canada is part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), an organization whose mission is already aligned with that of the Golden Dome. However, the Trump administration has targeted both nations for high tariffs, apparently in a bid to achieve the White House’s trade and security objectives.

Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, with the domes of the Thule Tracking Station, is pictured in northern Greenland on October 4, 2023. Credit: Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images

Trump’s obsession with acquiring Greenland, where the Space Force already has a military base, soured US relations with Denmark over the last year. The White House threatened additional tariffs on Denmark and other European countries until Denmark agreed to sell Greenland to the United States.

Then, after strong European pushback, Trump suddenly reversed course last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He withdrew threats to take Greenland by force and announced an unspecified “framework” with NATO for a future deal regarding the island. Trump told CNBC the framework involved partnerships on missile defense and mining: “They’re going to be involved in the Golden Dome, and they’re going to be involved in mineral rights, and so are we.”

In a statement, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded to Trump signaling an openness to a “constructive dialogue” on Arctic security, including the Golden Dome, “provided that this is done with respect for our territorial integrity.”

The White House’s backpedaling may have lowered the temperature of US relations with Denmark, at least for now. But Canada is still in Trump’s crosshairs. In a social media post on Friday, Trump claimed Canada was “against” plans to include Greenland in the Golden Dome program. Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, told CBS News she didn’t know what Trump was talking about.

The back-and-forth followed Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s rebuke of Trump’s foreign policy during a speech at Davos last week. In another sign of the withering US-Canada partnership, Trump threatened in a social media post Saturday to impose a 100 percent tariff on Canada if it follows through on a trade deal with China.

Canadian officials last year disclosed they were in talks to participate in the Golden Dome. In an interview with The War Zone published earlier this month, the operational commander of NORAD’s Canadian region advocated for “integrated missile defense” and “ground-based effectors” but said Canada’s role in a space-based layer would be a “political decision.”

“We look at it as Continental Shield,” said Royal Canadian Air Force Maj. Gen. Chris McKenna. “Golden Dome is the US brand on it. From our point of view, it’s great air missile defense and what we will put on the table to defend the continent with. And so I think there are ongoing negotiations between our governments with respect to what the specific investments will be.”

A roadmap to something

Guetlein’s comments on Golden Dome last week were part of an “industry day” hosted by Space Systems Command, the Los Angeles-based unit charged with procurement for most of the Space Force’s major programs. Asked what his top priority is this year, Guetlein said his emphasis is on the shield’s command and control system, the “glue layer” that ties together everything else necessary to make Golden Dome work. His deadline to demonstrate the command-and-control system is this summer.

The kinetic, or hit-to-kill, elements of the missile shield will come next. “In the summer of ’27, I have to integrate the interceptors, and in ’28 I have to demonstrate operational capability that is fielded against credible threats,” Guetlein said.

This would bring some version of Golden Dome into service before President Trump leaves the White House, a timetable used for several other programs, including NASA’s Artemis mission to land astronauts on the Moon. Officials are willing to trade perfection for speed. Guetlein’s intention is to “rapidly get an 85 percent product in the field.”

Gen. Michael Guetlein, overseeing the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system, looks on as President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. Credit: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

But a comprehensive missile defense shield, if economically and technically feasible, would take many more years to complete. Some pieces of what could become Golden Dome already exist, such as ground-based midcourse interceptors and an array of missile detection sensors on land, at sea, and in space.

Other elements were well along in development before Trump’s second term in the White House. These include a constellation of low-Earth-orbit satellites to better track hypersonic missiles and relay data to help US and allied forces shoot them down. This network, led by the Space Development Agency, began launching in 2023 but is not yet operational.

The Pentagon has already kicked off the preliminary steps to buy space-based interceptors. The shield will need hundreds or thousands of orbiting platforms on alert to shoot down a ballistic missile in flight. The Defense Department also aims to field modernized ground-based interceptors and Golden Dome’s command and control network, the system Guetlein identified as his top priority for this year.

Satellites are getting cheaper and easier to build. SpaceX has manufactured and launched approximately 11,000 Starlink satellites in less than seven years. No other company comes close to this number, but there are businesses looking at building standardized satellites that could be integrated with a range of payloads, including Earth-viewing cameras, radars, communication antennas, or perhaps, a missile interceptor.

But the interceptors themselves are brand new. Nothing like them has ever been put into space and tested before. Last year, the Space Force asked companies to submit their ideas for space-based interceptor (SBI) prototypes. The military awarded 18 companies small prototype development deals in November. The Space Force did not identify the winners, and the value of each contract fell below the $9 million public disclosure threshold for Pentagon programs.

These 18 awards are focused on boost-phase SBIs, weapons that can take out a missile soon after it leaves its silo. From a physics perspective, this is one of the most difficult things to ask an interceptor to do, because the weapon must account for atmospheric disturbances and reentry heating to reach its target. In December, the Space Force issued a follow-up request for prototype proposals looking at space-based midcourse interceptors capable of destroying a ballistic missile while it is coasting through space.

The Pentagon has not said how many SBIs it will need for Golden Dome, or what they will look like. Essentially, an orbiting interceptor will be a flying fuel tank with a rocket and a sensor package to home in on its target. But the Space Force and its prospective Golden Dome contractors, which include industry giants Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, have not disclosed the interceptors’ design specs or how many the shield will need.

A Standard Missile 3 Block IIA launches from the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, on December 10, 2018, during a test to intercept an intermediate-range ballistic missile target in space. Credit: Mark Wright/DOD

“I can move money around at will”

Guetlein said Pentagon leaders have empowered him with “unprecedented authorities” on the Golden Dome program. He said Friday his office has full authority over the program’s technical aspects, along with Golden Dome’s procurement, contracting, hiring, security, and budget.

President Trump directed the military to start the Golden Dome program in an executive order last January and nominated Guetlein to head the effort. The Senate confirmed him for the job in a voice vote last July. After the initial pomp of Golden Dome’s announcement, including multiple Oval Office photo ops, military officials went quiet. Guetlein cited security concerns for the Pentagon’s silence on one of Trump’s marquee defense programs.

“I was confirmed on the 18th of July. On the 19th of July, I popped No. 1 on the intel collect list for our adversaries,” Guetlein said. “On the 20th of July, they started hacking our defense industrial base, and the Secretary (of Defense) asked us to go silent. So, we have been quiet. I have not been talking to industry consortiums. I have not been talking to the press. I have not been talking to the think tanks. And it wasn’t until September that I was allowed to even start talking to the Hill (Congress).”

Despite this absence of dialogue, lawmakers approved $23 billion in a down payment for Golden Dome last summer. The final cost of the system is anyone’s guess, but the deployment and sustainment of Golden Dome will certainly cost hundreds of billions of dollars over multiple decades. Just getting the missile shield through a partial activation will cost $175 billion over three years, according to the White House.

Guetlein is off and running with the one-time infusion of $23 billion Congress gave him last year. “The budget authority… for the first $23 billion, it has no strings, no color, no year,” he said. “I can move that money around at will.”

He’s about to receive another $13.4 billion in this year’s defense budget, pending the appropriation bill’s final passage in the Senate and President Trump’s signature.

“I’ve got the Space Force buying SBIs. I’ve got the Army buying munitions and sensors. I’ve got the Navy buying munitions. I’ve got the Missile Defense Agency buying next-generation interceptors, glide phase interceptors, and a whole host of other capabilities,” Guetlein said.

Despite their willingness to fund Golden Dome, lawmakers still aren’t satisfied with the information they are getting from the Pentagon. In a document adjoining this year’s defense budget bill, members of the House and Senate defense appropriations subcommittees wrote they were “unable to effectively assess resources available” and unable to “conduct oversight” of the Golden Dome program “due to insufficient budgetary information” provided by the Department of Defense.

The lawmakers wrote that they “support the operational objectives of Golden Dome” and directed the Pentagon to “provide a comprehensive spend plan” for the missile shield within 60 days of the budget bill becoming law.

“Unfortunately because of the intel threat, we can only brief you at the classified level on what the architecture is,” Guetlein said.

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.

Trade wars muzzle allied talks on Trump’s Golden Dome missile shield Read More »

Former astronaut on lunar spacesuits: “I don’t think they’re great right now”

artemis, axiom space, Commercial space, Features, human spaceflight, kate rubins, mike barratt, NASA, Science, Space, spacesuits / Mike M. / January 26, 2026

“These are just the difficulties of designing a spacesuit for the lunar environment.”

NASA astronaut Loral O’Hara kneels down to pick up a rock during testing of Axiom’s lunar spacesuit inside NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston on September 24, 2025. Credit: NASA

Crew members traveling to the lunar surface on NASA’s Artemis missions should be gearing up for a grind. They will wear heavier spacesuits than those worn by the Apollo astronauts, and NASA will ask them to do more than the first Moonwalkers did more than 50 years ago.

The Moonwalking experience will amount to an “extreme physical event” for crews selected for the Artemis program’s first lunar landings, a former NASA astronaut told a panel of researchers, physicians, and engineers convened by the National Academies.

Kate Rubins, who retired from the space agency last year, presented the committee with her views on the health risks for astronauts on lunar missions. She outlined the concerns NASA officials often talk about: radiation exposure, muscle and bone atrophy, reduced cardiovascular and immune function, and other adverse medical effects of spaceflight.

Scientists and astronauts have come to understand many of these effects after a quarter-century of continuous human presence on the International Space Station. But the Moon is different in a few important ways. The Moon is outside the protection of the Earth’s magnetosphere, lunar dust is pervasive, and the Moon has partial gravity, about one-sixth as strong as the pull we feel on Earth.

Each of these presents challenges for astronauts living and working on the lunar surface, and their effects are amplified for crew members who venture outside for spacewalks. NASA selected Axiom Space, a Houston-based company, for a $228 million fixed-price contract to develop commercial pressurized spacesuits for the Artemis III mission, slated to be the first human landing mission on the Moon since 1972.

NASA hopes to fly the Artemis III mission by the end of 2028, but the schedule is in question. The readiness of Axiom’s spacesuits and the availability of new human-rated landers from SpaceX and Blue Origin are driving the timeline for Artemis III.

Stressing about stress

Rubins is a veteran of two long-duration spaceflights on the International Space Station, logging 300 days in space and conducting four spacewalks totaling nearly 27 hours. She is also an accomplished microbiologist and became the first person to sequence DNA in space.

“What I think we have on the Moon that we don’t really have on the space station that I want people to recognize is an extreme physical stress,” Rubins said. “On the space station, most of the time you’re floating around. You’re pretty happy. It’s very relaxed. You can do exercise. Every now and then, you do an EVA (Extravehicular Activity, or spacewalk).”

“When we get to the lunar surface, people are going to be sleep shifting,” Rubins said. “They’re barely going to get any sleep. They’re going to be in these suits for eight or nine hours. They’re going to be doing EVAs every day. The EVAs that I did on my flights, it was like doing a marathon and then doing another marathon when you were done.”

NASA astronaut Kate Rubins inside the International Space Station in 2020. Credit: NASA

Rubins is now a professor of computational and systems biology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She said treks on the Moon will be “even more challenging” than her spacewalks outside the ISS.

The Axiom spacesuit design builds on NASA’s own work developing a prototype suit to replace the agency’s decades-old Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMUs) used for spacewalks at the International Space Station (ISS). The new suits allow for greater mobility, with more flexible joints to help astronauts use their legs, crouch, and bend down—things they don’t have to do when floating outside the ISS.

Astronauts on the Moon also must contend with gravity. Including a life-support backpack, the commercial suit weighs more than 300 pounds in Earth’s gravity, but Axiom considers the exact number proprietary. The Axiom suit is considerably heavier than the 185-pound spacesuit the Apollo astronauts wore on the Moon. NASA’s earlier prototype exploration spacesuit was estimated to weigh more than 400 pounds, according to a 2021 report by NASA’s inspector general.

“We’ve definitely seen trauma from the suits, from the actual EVA suit accommodation,” said Mike Barratt, a NASA astronaut and medical doctor. “That’s everything from skin abrasions to joint pain to—no kidding—orthopedic trauma. You can potentially get a fracture of sorts. EVAs on the lunar surface with a heavily loaded suit and heavy loads that you’re either carrying or tools that you’re reacting against, that’s an issue.”

On paper, the Axiom suits for NASA’s Artemis missions are more capable than the Apollo suits. They can support longer spacewalks and provide greater redundancy, and they’re made of modern materials to enhance flexibility and crew comfort. But the new suits are heavier, and for astronauts used to spacewalks outside the ISS, walks on the Moon will be a slog, Rubins said.

“I think the suits are better than Apollo, but I don’t think they are great right now,” Rubins said. “They still have a lot of flexibility issues. Bending down to pick up rocks is hard. The center of gravity is an issue. People are going to be falling over. I think when we say these suits aren’t bad, it’s because the suits have been so horrible that when we get something slightly less than horrible, we get all excited and we celebrate.”

The heavier lunar suits developed for Artemis missions run counter to advice from former astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, who spent 22 hours walking on the Moon during NASA’s Apollo 17 mission in 1972.

“I’d have that go about four times the mobility, at least four times the mobility, and half the weight,” Schmitt said in a NASA oral history interview in 2000. “Now, one way you can… reduce the weight is carry less consumables and learn to use consumables that you have in some other vehicle, like a lunar rover. Any time you’re on the rover, you hook into those consumables and live off of those, and then when you get off, you live off of what’s in your backpack. We, of course, just had the consumables in our backpack.”

NASA won’t have a rover on the first Artemis landing mission. That will come on a later flight. A fully pressurized vehicle for astronauts to drive across the Moon may be ready sometime in the 2030s. Until then, Moonwalkers will have to tough it out.

“I do crossfit. I do triathlons. I do marathons. I get out of a session in the pool in the NBL (Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory) doing the lunar suit underwater, and I just want to go home and take a nap,” Rubins told the panel. “I am absolutely spent. You’re bruised. This is an extreme physical event in a way that the space station is not.”

NASA astronaut Mike Barratt inside the International Space Station in 2024. Credit: NASA

Barratt met with the same National Academies panel this week and presented a few hours before Rubins. The committee was chartered to examine how human explorers can enable scientific discovery at sites across the lunar surface. Barratt had a more favorable take on the spacesuit situation.

“This is not a commercial for Axiom. I don’t promote anyone, but their suit is getting there,” Barratt said. “We’ve got 700 hours of pressurized experience in it right now. We do a lot of tests in the NBL, and there are techniques and body conditioning that you do to help you get ready for doing things like this. Bending down in the suit is really not too bad at all.”

Rubins and Barratt did not discuss the schedule for when Axiom’s lunar spacesuit will be ready to fly to the Moon, but the conversation illuminated the innumerable struggles of spacewalking, Moonwalking, and the training astronauts undergo to prepare for extravehicular outings.

The one who should know

I spoke directly with Rubins after her discussion with the National Academies. Her last assignment at NASA was as chief of the EVA and robotics branch in the astronaut office, where she assisted in the development of the new lunar spacesuits. I asked about her experiences testing the lunar suit and her thoughts on how astronauts should prepare for Moonwalks.

“The suits that we have are definitely much better than Apollo,” Rubins said in the interview. “They were just big bags of air. The joints aren’t in there, so it was harder to move. What they did have going for them was that they were much, much lighter than our current spacesuits. We have added a lot of the joints back, and that does get some mobility for us. But at the end of the day, the suits are still quite heavy.”

You can divide the weight of the suit by six to get an idea of how it might feel to carry it around on the lunar surface. While it won’t feel like 300 pounds, astronauts will still have to account for their mass and momentum.

Rubins explained:

Instead of kind of floating in microgravity and moving your mass around with your hands and your arms, now we’re ambulating. We’re walking with our legs. You’re going to have more strain on your knees and your hips. Your hamstrings, your calves, and your glutes are going to come more into play.

I think, overall, it may be a better fit for humans physically because if you ask somebody to do a task, I’m going to be much better at a task if I can use my legs and I’m ambulating. Then I have to pull myself along with my arms… We’re not really built to do that, but we are built to run and to go long distances. Our legs are just such a powerful force.

So I think there are a lot of things lining up that are going to make the physiology easier. Then there are things that are going to be different because we’re now in a partial gravity environment. We’re going to be bending, we’re going to be twisting, we’re going to be doing different things.

It’s an incredibly hard engineering challenge. You have to keep a human alive in absolute vacuum, warm at temperatures that you know in the polar regions could go as far down as 40 Kelvin (minus 388° Fahrenheit). We haven’t sent humans anywhere that cold before. They are also going to be very hot. They’re going to be baking in the sunshine. You’ve got radiation. If you put all that together, that’s a huge amount of suit material just to keep the human physiology and the human body intact.

Then our challenge is ‘how do you make that mobile?’ It’s very difficult to bend down and pick up a rock. You have to manage that center of gravity because you’re wearing that big life support system on your back, a big pack that has a lot of mass in it, so that brings your center of gravity higher than you’re used to on Earth and a little bit farther backward.

When you move around, it’s like wearing a really, really heavy backpack that has mass but no weight, so it’s going to kind of tip you back. You can do some things with putting weights on the front of the suit to try to move that center of gravity forward, but it’s still higher, and it’s not exactly at your center of mass that you’re used to on the Earth. On the Earth, we have a center of our mass related to gravity, and nobody ever thinks about it, and you don’t think about it until it moves somewhere else, and then it makes all of your natural motion seem very difficult.

Those are some of the challenges that we’re facing engineering-wise. I think the new suits, they’ve gone a long way toward addressing these, but it’s still a hard engineering challenge. And I’m not talking about any specific suit. I can’t talk about the details of the provider’s suits. This is the NASA xEMU and all the lunar suits I have tested over the years. That includes the Mark III suit, the Axiom suit. They have similar issues. So this isn’t really anything about a specific vendor. These are just the difficulties of designing a spacesuit for the lunar environment.

NASA trains astronauts for spacewalks in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, an enormous pool in Houston used for simulating weightlessness. They also use a gravity-offloading device to rehearse the basics of spacewalking. The optimal test environment, short of the space environment itself, will be aboard parabolic flights, where suit developers and astronauts can get the best feel for the suit’s momentum, according to Rubins.

Axiom and NASA are well along assessing the new lunar spacesuit’s performance underwater, but they haven’t put it through reduced-gravity flight testing. “Until you get to the actual parabolic flight, that’s when you can really test the ability to manage this momentum,” Rubins said.

NASA astronauts Loral O’Hara and Stan Love test Axiom’s lunar spacesuit inside NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston on September 24, 2025. Credit: NASA

Recovering from a fall on the lunar surface comes with its own perils.

“You’re face down on the lunar surface, and you have to do the most massive, powerful push up to launch you and the entire mass of the suit up off the surface, high enough so you can then flip your legs under you and catch the ground,” Rubins said. “You basically have to kind of do a jumping pushup… This is a risky maneuver we test a whole bunch in training. It’s really non-trivial.”

The lunar suits are sleeker than the suits NASA uses on the ISS, but they are still bulky. “If you’re trying to kneel, if you’re thinking about bending forward at your waist, all that material in your waist has nowhere to go, so it just compresses and compresses,” Rubins said. “That’s why I say it’s harder to kneel. It’s harder to bend forward because you’re having to compress the suit in those areas.

“We’ve done these amazing things with joint mobility,” Rubins said. “The mobility around the joints is amazing… but now we’re dealing with this compression issue. And there’s not an obvious engineering fix to that.”

The fix to this problem might come in the form of tools instead of changes to the spacesuit itself. Rubins said astronauts could use a staff, or something like a hiking pole, to brace themselves when they need to kneel or bend down. “That way I’m not trying to compress the suit and deal with my balance at the same time.”

A bruising exertion

The Moonwalker suit can comfortably accommodate a wider range of astronauts than NASA’s existing EMUs on the space station. The old EMUs can be resized to medium, large, and extra-large, but that leaves gaps and makes the experience uncomfortable for a smaller astronaut. This discomfort is especially noticeable while practicing for spacewalks underwater, where the tug of gravity is still present, Rubins said.

“As a female, I never really had an EMU that fit me,” Rubins said. “It was always giant. When I’m translating around or doing something, I’m physically falling and slamming myself, my chest or my back, into one side of the suit or the other underwater, whereas with the lunar suit, I’ve got a suit that fits me right. That’s going to lead to less bruising. Just having a suit that fits you is much better.”

Mission planners should also emphasize physical conditioning for astronauts assigned to lunar landing missions. That includes preflight weight and endurance training, plus guidance on what to eat in space to maximize energy levels before astronauts head outside for a stroll.

“That human has to go up really maximally conditioned,” Rubins said.

Rubins and Barratt agreed that NASA and its spacesuit provider should be ready to rapidly respond to feedback from future Moonwalkers. Engineers modified and upgraded the Apollo spacesuits in a matter of months, iterating the design between each mission.

“Our general design is on a good path,” Rubins said. “We need to make sure that we continue to push for increasing improvements in human performance, and some of that ties back to the budget. Our first suit design is not where we’re going to be done if we want to do a really sustained lunar program. We have to continue to improve, and I think it’s important to recognize that we’re going to learn so many lessons during Artemis III.”

Barratt has a unique perspective on spacesuit design. He has performed spacewalks at the ISS in NASA’s spacesuit and the Russian Orlan spacesuit. Barratt said the US suit is easier to work in than the Orlan, but the Russian suit is “incredibly reliable” and “incredibly serviceable.”

“It had a couple of glitches, and literally, you unzip a curtain and it’s like looking at my old Chevy Blazer,” Barratt said. “Everything is right there. It’s mechanical, it’s accessible with standard tools. We can fix it. We can do that really easily. We’ve tried to incorporate those lessons learned into our next-generation EVA systems.”

Contrast that with the NASA suits on the ISS, where one of Barratt’s spacewalks in 2024 was cut short by a spacesuit water leak. “We recently had to return a suit from the space station,” Barratt said. “We’ve got another one that’s sort of offline for a while; we’re troubleshooting it. It’s a really subtle problem that’s extremely difficult to work on in places that are hard to access.”

It’s happened before. Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmitt loses his balance on the Moon, then quickly recovers. Credit: NASA

Harrison Schmitt, speaking with a NASA interviewer in 2000, said his productivity in the Apollo suit “couldn’t have been much more than 10 percent of what you would do normally here on Earth.”

“You take the human brain, the human eyes, and the human hands into space. That’s the only justification you have for having human beings in space,” Schmitt said. “It’s a massive justification, but that’s what you want to use, and all three have distinct benefits in productivity and in gathering new information and infusing data over any automated system. Unfortunately, we have discarded one of those, and that is the hands.”

Schmitt singled out the gloves as the “biggest problem” with the Apollo suits. “The gloves are balloons, and they’re made to fit,” he said. Picking something up with a firm grip requires squeezing against the pressure inside the suit. The gloves can also damage astronauts’ fingernails.

“That squeezing against that pressure causes these forearm muscles to fatigue very rapidly,” Schmitt said. “Just imagine squeezing a tennis ball continuously for eight hours or 10 hours, and that’s what you’re talking about.”

Barratt recounted a conversation in which Schmitt, now 90, said he wouldn’t have wanted to do another spacewalk after his three excursions with commander Gene Cernan on Apollo 17.

“Physically, and from a suit-maintenance standpoint, he thought that that was probably the limit, what they did,” Barratt said. “They were embedded with dust. The visors were abraded. Every time they brushed the dust off the visors, they lost visibility.”

Getting the Artemis spacesuit right is vital to the program’s success. You don’t want to travel all the way to the Moon and stop exploring because of sore fingers or an injured knee.

“If you look at what we’re spending on suits versus what we’re spending on the rocket, this is a pretty small amount,” Rubins said. “Obviously, the rocket can kill you very quickly. That needs to be done right. But the continuous improvement in the suit will get us that much more efficiency. Saving 30 minutes or an hour on the Moon, that gives you that much more science.”

“Once you have safely landed on the lunar surface, this is where you’ve got to put your money,” Barratt said.

Former astronaut on lunar spacesuits: “I don’t think they’re great right now” Read More »