Space

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work”

artemis, congress, griffin, NASA, Space, spacex, starship / Kris Guyer / December 4, 2025

As for what to do about it, Griffin said legislators should end the present plan.

“The Artemis III mission and those beyond should be canceled and we should start over, proceeding with all deliberate speed,” Griffin said. He included a link to his plan, which is not dissimilar from the “Apollo on Steroids” architecture he championed two decades ago, but was later found to be unaffordable within NASA’s existing budget.

“There need to be consequences”

Other panel members offered more general advice.

Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said NASA should continue to serve as an engine for US success in space and science. He cited the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which has stimulated a growing lunar industry. He also said NASA spending on basic research and development is a critical feedstock for US innovation, and a key advantage over the People’s Republic of China.

“When you’re looking at the NASA authorization legislation, look at it in a way where you are the genesis of that innovation ecosystem, that flywheel that really powers US national security and economic security, in a way that the PRC just can’t match,” Swope said. “Without science, we would never have had something like the Manhattan Project.”

Another witness, Dean Cheng of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, said NASA—and by extension Congress—must do a better job of holding itself and its contractors accountable.

Many of NASA’s major exploration programs, including the Orion spacecraft, Space Launch System rocket, and their ground systems, have run years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget in the last 15 years. NASA has funded these programs with cost-plus contracts, so it has had limited ability to enforce deadlines with contractors. Moreover, Congress has more or less meekly gone along with the delays and continued funding the programs.

Cheng said that whatever priorities policymakers decide for NASA, failing to achieve objectives should come with consequences.

“One, it needs to be bipartisan, to make very clear throughout our system that this is something that everyone is pushing for,” Cheng said of establishing priorities for NASA. “And two, that there are consequences, budgetary, legal, and otherwise, to the agency, to supplying companies. If they fail to deliver on time and on budget, that it will not be a ‘Well, okay, let’s try again next year.’ There need to be consequences.”

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work” Read More »

NASA nominee appears before Congress, defends plans to revamp space agency

isaacman, NASA, Space / Rejus Almole / December 3, 2025

Private astronaut Jared Isaacman returned to Congress on Wednesday for a second confirmation hearing to become NASA administrator before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in Washington, DC.

There appeared to be no showstoppers during the hearing, in which Isaacman reiterated his commitment to the space agency’s Artemis Program and defended his draft plan for NASA, “Project Athena,” which calls for an assessment of how NASA should adapt to meet the modern space age.

During his testimony, Isaacman expressed urgency as NASA faces a growing threat from China to its supremacy in spaceflight.

“After more than a half-century, America is set to launch NASA astronauts around the Moon in just a matter of months—a challenging endeavor to say the least—and one that requires full-time leadership,” Isaacman said. “We are in a great competition with a rival that has the will and means to challenge American exceptionalism across multiple domains, including in the high ground of space. This is not the time for delay, but for action, because if we fall behind—if we make a mistake—we may never catch up, and the consequences could shift the balance of power here on Earth.”

Second time around

Isaacman appeared before this Senate committee eight months ago, after his original nomination by President Trump to lead the space agency. That hearing went reasonably well, and he was days away from being confirmed by about two-thirds of the Senate when the president pulled his nomination for political reasons. But Isaacman’s time was not done, and throughout the summer and fall, his supporters pressed his case, leading to Trump’s re-nomination in early November.

For much of September and October, there was a political struggle between Isaacman’s supporters and those who backed the interim NASA administrator, Sean Duffy, to lead the space agency full-time. As part of this tussle, Duffy’s team leaked copies of Isaacman’s draft plan, Project Athena, to reform NASA. Duffy’s team sought to cherry-pick elements of the plan to cast Isaacman as an agent of chaos, intent on canceling NASA field centers and killing useful programs.

NASA nominee appears before Congress, defends plans to revamp space agency Read More »

This Chinese company could become the country’s first to land a reusable rocket

china, jiuquan, LandSpace, launch, long march, long march 12a, reusable rocket, Space, space pioneer, tianlong 3, zhuque-3 / Tim Belzer / December 2, 2025

From the outside, China’s Zhuque-3 rocket looks like a clone of SpaceX’s Falcon 9.

LandSpace’s Zhuque-3 rocket with its nine first stage engines. Credit: LandSpace

There’s a race in China among several companies vying to become the next to launch and land an orbital-class rocket, and the starting gun could go off as soon as tonight.

LandSpace, one of several maturing Chinese rocket startups, is about to launch the first flight of its medium-lift Zhuque-3 rocket. Liftoff could happen around 11 pm EST tonight (04: 00 UTC Wednesday), or noon local time at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwestern China.

Airspace warning notices advising pilots to steer clear of the rocket’s flight path suggest LandSpace has a launch window of about two hours. When it lifts off, the Zhuque-3 (Vermillion Bird-3) rocket will become the largest commercial launch vehicle ever flown in China. What’s more, LandSpace will become the first Chinese launch provider to attempt a landing of its first stage booster, using the same tried-and-true return method pioneered by SpaceX and, more recently, Blue Origin in the United States.

Construction crews recently finished a landing pad in the remote Gobi Desert, some 240 miles (390 kilometers) southeast of the launch site at Jiuquan. Unlike US spaceports, the Jiuquan launch base is located in China’s interior, with rockets flying over land as they climb into space. When the Zhuque-3 booster finishes its job of sending the rocket toward orbit, it will follow an arcing trajectory toward the recovery zone, firing its engines to slow for landing about eight-and-a-half minutes after liftoff.

LandSpace’s reusable rocket test vehicle lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center for a high-altitude test flight on Wednesday, September 11, 2024. Credit: Landspace

A first step for China

At least, that’s what is supposed to happen. LandSpace officials have not made any public statements about the odds of a successful landing—or, for that matter, a successful launch. It took Blue Origin, a much larger enterprise than LandSpace backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, two tries to land its New Glenn booster on a floating barge after launching from Cape Canaveral, Florida. A decade ago, SpaceX achieved the first of its now more than 500 rocket landings after many more attempts.

LandSpace was established in 2015, soon after the Chinese government introduced space policy reforms, opening the door for private capital to begin funding startups in the satellite and launch industries. So far, the company has raised more than $400 million from venture capital firms and investment funds backed by the Chinese government.

With this money, LandSpace has developed its own liquid-fueled engines and a light-class launcher named Zhuque-2, which became the world’s first methane-burning launcher to reach orbit in 2023. LandSpace’s Zhuque-2 has logged four successful missions in six tries.

But the Beijing-based company’s broader goal has been the development of a larger, partially reusable rocket to meet China’s growing appetite for satellite services. LandSpace finds itself in a crowded field of competitors, with China’s legacy state-owned rocket developers and a slate of venture-backed startups also in the mix.

The first stage of the Zhuque-3 rocket underwent a test-firing of its nine engines in June. Credit: LandSpace

China needs reusable rockets to keep up with the US launch industry, dominated by SpaceX, which flies more often and hauls heavier cargo to orbit than all Chinese rockets combined. There are at least two Chinese megaconstellations now being deployed in low-Earth orbit, each with architectures requiring thousands of satellites to relay data and Internet signals around the world. Without scaling up satellite production and reusing rockets, China will have difficulty matching the capacities of SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other emerging US launch companies.

Just three months ago, US military officials identified China’s advancements in reusable rocketry as a key to unlocking the country’s ability to potentially threaten US assets in space. “I’m concerned about when the Chinese figure out how to do reusable lift that allows them to put more capability on orbit at a quicker cadence than currently exists,” said Brig. Gen. Brian Sidari, the Space Force’s deputy chief of space operations for intelligence, at a conference in September.

Without reusable rockets, China has turned to a wide variety of expendable boosters this year to launch less than half as often as the United States. China has made 77 orbital launch attempts so far this year, but no single rocket type has flown more than 13 times. In contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is responsible for 153 of 182 launches by US rockets.

That’s no Falcon 9

The Chinese companies that master reusable rocketry first will have an advantage in the Chinese launch industry. A handful of rockets appear to be poised to take this advantage, beginning with LandSpace’s Zhuque-3.

In its first iteration, the Zhuque-3 rocket will be capable of placing a payload of up to 17,600 pounds (8 metric tons) into low-Earth orbit after accounting for the fuel reserves required for booster recovery. The entire rocket stands about 216 feet (65.9 meters) tall.

The first stage has nine TQ-12A engines consuming methane and liquid oxygen, producing more than 1.6 million pounds of thrust at full throttle. The second stage is powered by a single methane-fueled TQ-15A engine with about 200,000 pounds of thrust. These are the same engines LandSpace has successfully flown on the smaller Zhuque-2 rocket.

LandSpace eventually plans to debut an upgraded Zhuque-3 carrying more propellant and using more powerful engines, raising its payload capacity to more than 40,000 pounds (18.3 metric tons) in reusable mode, or a few tons more with an expendable booster.

From the outside, LandSpace’s new rocket looks a lot like the vehicle it is trying to emulate: SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Like the Falcon 9, the Zhuque-3 booster’s nine-engine design also features four deployable landing legs and grid fins to help steer the rocket toward landing.

But LandSpace also incorporates elements from SpaceX’s much heavier Starship rocket. The primary structure of the Zhuque-3 is made of stainless steel, and its engines burn methane fuel, not kerosene like the Falcon 9.

The Zhuque-3 booster’s landing legs are visible here, folded up against the rocket’s stainless steel fuselage. Credit: LandSpace

In preparation for the debut of the Zhuque-3, LandSpace engineers built a prototype rocket for launch and landing demonstrations. The testbed aced a flight to 10 kilometers, or about 33,000 feet, in September 2024 and descended to a pinpoint vertical landing, validating the rocket’s guidance algorithms and engine restart capability.

The first of many

Another reusable booster is undergoing preflight preparations not far from LandSpace’s launch site at Jiuquan. This rocket, called the Long March 12A, comes from one of China’s established government-owned rocket firms. It could fly before the end of this year, but officials haven’t publicized a schedule.

The Long March 12A has comparable performance to LandSpace’s Zhuque-3, and it will also use a cluster of methane-fueled engines. Its developer, the Shanghai Institute of Spaceflight Technology, will attempt to land the Long March 12A booster on the first flight.

Several other companies working on reusable rockets appear to be in an advanced stage of development.

One of them, Space Pioneer, might have been first to flight with its new Tianlong-3 rocket if not for the thorny problem of an accidental launch during a booster test-firing last year. Space Pioneer eventually completed a successful static fire in September of this year, and the company recently released a photo showing its rocket on the launch pad.

Other Chinese companies with a chance of soon flying their new reusable boosters include CAS Space, which recently shipped its first Kinetica-2 rocket to Jiuquan for launch preps. Galactic Energy completed test-firings of the second stage and first stage for its Pallas-1 rocket in September and November.

Another startup, i-Space, is developing a partially reusable rocket called the Hyperbola-3 that could debut next year from China’s southern spaceport on Hainan Island. Officials from i-Space unveiled an ocean-going drone ship for rocket landings earlier this year. Deep Blue Aerospace is also working on vertical landing technology for its Nebula-1 rocket, having conducted a dramatic high-altitude test flight last year.

These rockets all fall in the small- to medium-class performance range. It’s unclear whether any of these companies will try to land their boosters on their first flights—like the Zhuque-3 and Long March 12A—but all have roadmaps to reusability.

China’s largest rocket developer, the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, is not as close to fielding a reusable launcher. But the academy has far greater ambitions, with a pair of super-heavy rockets in its future. The first will be the Long March 10, designed to fly with reusable boosters while launching China’s next-generation crew spacecraft on missions to the Moon. Later, perhaps in the 2030s, China could debut the fully reusable Long March 9 rocket similar in scale to SpaceX’s Starship.

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.

This Chinese company could become the country’s first to land a reusable rocket Read More »

The missile meant to strike fear in Russia’s enemies fails once again

ICBM, launch, russia, Sarmat, Science, Space, vladimir putin / Paul Patrick / December 1, 2025

Therefore, it’s no wonder Russian officials like to talk up Sarmat’s capabilities. Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Sarmat a “truly unique weapon” that will “provide food for thought for those who, in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country.” Dmitry Rogozin, then the head of Russia’s space agency, called the Sarmat missile a “superweapon” after its first test flight in 2022.

So far, what’s unique about the Sarmat missile is its propensity for failure. The missile’s first full-scale test flight in 2022 apparently went well, but the program has suffered a string of consecutive failures since then, most notably a catastrophic explosion last year that destroyed the Sarmat missile’s underground silo in northern Russia.

The Sarmat is supposed to replace Russia’s aging R-36M2 strategic ICBM fleet, which was built in Ukraine. The RS-28, sometimes called the Satan II, is a “product solely of Russian industry cooperation,” according to Russia’s Ministry of Defense.

The video of the missile failure last week lacks the resolution to confirm whether it was a Sarmat missile or the older-model R-36M2, analysts agree it was most likely a Sarmat. The missile silo used for Friday’s test was recently renovated, perhaps to convert it to support Sarmat tests after the destruction of the new missile’s northern launch site last year.

“Work there began in Spring 2025, after the ice thawed,” wrote Etienne Marcuz, an analyst on strategic armaments at the Foundation for Strategic Research, a French think tank. The “urgent renovation” of the missile silo at Dombarovsky lends support for the hypothesis that last week’s accident involved the Sarmat, and not the R-36M2, which was last tested more than 10 years ago, Marcuz wrote on X.

“If this is indeed another Sarmat failure, it would be highly detrimental to the medium-term future of Russian deterrence,” Marcuz continued. “The aging R-36M2 missiles, which carry a significant portion of Russia’s strategic warheads, are seeing their replacement pushed even further into the future, while their maintenance—previously handled by Ukraine until 2014—remains highly uncertain.”

In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state media agency Sputnik, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on November 5, 2025. Credit: Gavriil Grigorov/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Podvig, the UN researcher who also runs the Russian Nuclear Forces blog site, agrees with Marcuz’s conclusions. With the R-36M2 missile soon to retire, “it is extremely unlikely that the Rocket Forces would want to test launch them,” Podvig wrote on his website. “This leaves Sarmat.”

The failure adds fresh uncertainty to the readiness of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. If this were actually a test of one of Russia’s older ICBMs, the result would raise questions about hardware decay and obsolescence. In the more likely case of a Sarmat test flight, it would be the latest in a series of problems that have delayed its entry into service since 2018.

The missile meant to strike fear in Russia’s enemies fails once again Read More »

Space CEO explains why he believes private space stations are a viable business

cld, commercial space stations, dylan taylor, NASA, Space / Paul Patrick / December 1, 2025

It’s a critical time for companies competing to develop a commercial successor to the International Space Station. NASA is working with several companies, including Axiom Space, Voyager Technologies, Blue Origin, and Vast, to develop concepts for private stations where it can lease time for its astronauts.

The space agency awarded Phase One contracts several years ago and is now in the final stages of writing requirements for Phase Two after asking for feedback from industry partners in September. This program is known as Commercial LEO Destinations, or CLDs in industry parlance.

Time is running out for NASA if it wants to establish continuity from the International Space Station, which will reach its end of life in 2030, with a follow-on station ready to go before then.

One of the more intriguing companies in the competition is Voyager Technologies, which recently announced a strategic investment from Janus Henderson, a global investment firm. In another sign that the competition is heating up, Voyager also just hired John Baum away from Vast, where he was the company’s business development leader.

To get a sense of this competition and how Voyager is coming along with its Starlab space station project, Ars spoke with the firm’s chairman, Dylan Taylor. This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

Ars: I know a lot of the companies working on CLDs are actively fundraising right now. How is this coming along for Voyager and Starlab?

Dylan Taylor: Fundraising is going quite well. You saw the Janus announcement. That’s significant for a few reasons. One is, it’s a significant investment. Of course, we’re not disclosing exactly how much. (Editor’s note: It likely is on the order of $100 million.) But the more positive development on the Janus investment is that they are such a well-known, well-respected financial investor.

If you look at the kind of bellwether investors, Janus would be up there with a Blackstone or Blackrock or Fidelity. So it’s significant not only in terms of capital contribution, but in… showing that commercial space stations are investable. This isn’t money coming from the Gulf States. It’s not a syndication of a bunch of $1,000 checks from retail investors. This is a very significant institutional investor coming in, and it’s a signal to the market. They did significant diligence on all our competitors, and they went out of the way saying that we’re far and away the best business plan, best design, and everything else, so that’s why it’s so meaningful.

Space CEO explains why he believes private space stations are a viable business Read More »

Before a Soyuz launch Thursday someone forgot to secure a 20-ton service platform

iss, launch pad failure, progress, russia, site 31, soyuz, Space / Tim Belzer / November 28, 2025

Thursday was the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States and so far NASA has not commented on the implications of damage to Site 31 in Kazakhstan.

However one source familiar with the agency’s relationship with Russia said there are multiple concerns. In the long-term, as Manber said, this will test Russia’s commitment to the partnership. But in the near-term there are concerns about the lack of Progress launches.

Progress is key to flying ISS

Not only does this cargo vehicle bring supplies to the Russian segment of the station, it is used as a primary means to reboost the space station’s altitude. It also services the Russian thruster attitude control system which works alongside the US control moment gyroscopes to maintain the station’s attitude and orientation. Notably, the Russian control system “desaturates” the US gyroscopes by removing their excess angular momentum.

This could potentially be accomplished by docked vehicles, at a high fuel cost, the source said. Moreover, the US cargo supply ships, SpaceX’s Dragon and Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus, have also demonstrated the capability to reboost the space station. But long-term it is not immediately clear whether US vehicles could completely make up for the loss of Progress vehicles.

According to an internal schedule there are two Progress vehicles due to launch between now and July 2027, followed by the next crewed Soyuz mission next summer.

The at least temporary loss of Site 31 will only place further pressure on SpaceX. The company currently flies NASA’s only operational crewed vehicle capable of reaching the space station, and the space agency recently announced that Boeing’s Starliner vehicle needs to fly an uncrewed mission before potentially carrying crew again. Moreover, due to rocket issues, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 vehicle is the only rocket currently available to launch both Dragon and Cygnus supply missions to the space station. For a time, SpaceX may also now be called upon to backstop Russia as well.

Before a Soyuz launch Thursday someone forgot to secure a 20-ton service platform Read More »

ULA aimed to launch up to 10 Vulcan rockets this year—it will fly just once

launch, military space, Science, Space, united launch alliance, US Space Force, vulcan / Paul Patrick / November 26, 2025

Engineers traced the problem to a manufacturing defect in an insulator on the solid rocket motor, and telemetry data from all four boosters on the following flight in August exhibited “spot-on” performance, according to Bruno. But officials decided to recover the spent expendable motor casings from the Atlantic Ocean for inspections to confirm there were no other surprises or close calls.

The hangup delaying the next Vulcan launches isn’t in rocket production. ULA has hardware for multiple Vulcan rockets in storage at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

Instead, one key reason for Vulcan’s past delays has been the rocket’s performance, particularly its solid rocket boosters. It isn’t clear whether the latest delays are related to the readiness of the Space Force’s GSSAP satellites (the next GPS satellite to fly on Vulcan has been available for launch since 2022), the inspections of Vulcan’s solid rocket motors, or something else.

Vulcan booster cores in storage at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Credit: United Launch Alliance

A Space Systems Command spokesperson told Ars that “appropriate actions are being executed to ensure a successful USSF-87 mission … The teams analyze all hardware as well as available data from previous missions to evaluate space flight worthiness of future missions.”

The spokesperson did not provide a specific answer to a question from Ars about inspections on the solid rocket motors from the most recent Vulcan flight.

ULA’s outfitting of a new rocket assembly hangar and a second mobile launch platform for the Vulcan rocket at Cape Canaveral has also seen delays. With so many launches in its backlog, ULA needs capacity to stack and prepare at least two rockets in different buildings at the same time. Eventually, the company’s goal is to launch at an average clip of twice per month.

On Monday, ground crews at Cape Canaveral moved the second Vulcan launch platform to the company’s launch pad for fit checks and “initial technical testing.” This is a good sign that the company is moving closer to ramping up the Vulcan launch cadence, but it’s now clear it won’t happen this year.

Vulcan’s slow launch rate since its first flight in January 2024 is not unusual for new rockets. It took 28 months for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and ULA’s Atlas V to reach their fourth flight, a timeline that the Vulcan vehicle will reach in May 2026.

The Delta IV rocket from ULA flew its fourth mission 25 months after debuting in 2002. Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket reached its fourth flight in 16 months, but it shares more in common with its predecessor than the others. SpaceX’s Starship also had a faster ramp-up, with its fourth test flight coming less than 14 months after the first.

ULA aimed to launch up to 10 Vulcan rockets this year—it will fly just once Read More »

Russia’s Soyuz 5 will soon come alive. But will anyone want to fly on it?

rockets, russia, soyuz-5, Space / Paul Patrick / November 26, 2025

The Soyuz 5 rocket, also named Irtysh for a river that flows through Russia and Kazakhstan, answers to that purpose. Its first stage is powered by a single RD-171MV engine, which at sea level has three times the thrust of a single Raptor 3 engine, and is part of a family of engines that are the most powerful liquid-fueled rocket engines in the world. The RD-171MV uses only Russian components.

Russian officials also plan to use the Soyuz 5 rocket as the “boost” stage of a super-heavy lift rocket, known as Yenisei, that would be used for a human lunar program. However the Yenisei rocket seems to be one of those Russian space initiatives that is forever mired in a nebulous development stage—often talked about as a national priority, but rarely advanced.

What market is there?

But the Soyuz 5 rocket now is very real, and it should launch within the next month. The question is, what market will it serve? Russia presently has the Soyuz 2, which has about half the lift capacity, for crew and cargo missions to the International Space Station, as well as the launch of smaller spacecraft. There is also the line of Angara rockets that has come online during the last decade.

The Soyuz 5 slots in between the Soyuz 2 and Angara A5 rocket in terms of performance. So what demand is there for a rocket with 18 tons of capacity to low-Earth orbit? One concern is that the number of geostationary satellites launched annually, once the bread and butter of the Proton vehicle, has dropped precipitously.

Another is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has taken Russian rockets off the table for many Western satellite operators. At the same time, international competition in the medium-lift market has stiffened. China has an increasing number of government and commercial options, and India’s launch offerings are growing as well. And for any company or country mostly concerned about price, Russia almost certainly can’t beat the reusable Falcon 9 booster offered by SpaceX.

Russia’s Soyuz 5 will soon come alive. But will anyone want to fly on it? Read More »

China launches an emergency lifeboat to bring three astronauts back to Earth

china, human spaceflight, long march, long march 2f, shenzhou, Space, tiangong / Paul Patrick / November 25, 2025

And then, last year, Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule suffered a series of helium leaks and propulsion problems that made NASA managers uncomfortable with its ability to safely return to Earth with astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams. The two astronauts remained on the ISS as Starliner made a successful uncrewed landing in September 2024, while SpaceX launched an already-scheduled Crew Dragon mission to the station with two of its four seats unoccupied. The Dragon spacecraft brought Wilmore and Williams home in March.

The incidents with Shenzhou 20 and Soyuz MS-22 highlight the risks of space junk in low-Earth orbit, especially tiny debris fragments that evade detection by tracking telescopes and radars. A minuscule piece of space debris traveling at several miles per second can pack a punch. Crews at the Tiangong outpost ventured outside the station multiple times in the last few years to install space debris shielding to protect the outpost from such impacts.

Luckily, the damage to Shenzhou 20’s window and Soyuz MS-22’s dramatic coolant leak were unmistakable. Tiny impacts on other unseen parts of a spacecraft would be more difficult to find.

Chinese astronauts Zhang Hongzhang, Wu Fei, and Zhang Lu (left to right) attend a send-off ceremony at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China before their launch on October 31, 2025. Credit: Lian Zhen/Xinhua via Getty Images

China’s first human spaceflight emergency

It has been 22 years since China sent Yang Liwei, its first astronaut, into orbit on the Shenzhou 5 mission. Since then, China’s human spaceflight program has seemingly executed its missions like clockwork. Chinese astronauts performed the program’s first spacewalk in 2008, then China launched a pair of mini-space labs in 2011 and 2016, each hosting Shenzhou crews for stays lasting several weeks.

China started launching modules for Tiangong, its first permanently occupied space station, in 2021 and completed the lab’s initial assembly in 2022. Since then, Chinese astronauts have maintained a permanent presence in low-Earth orbit.

Chinese state media previously reported that the China Manned Space Agency, managed by the country’s military, kept a rocket and Shenzhou spacecraft on standby in the event of an emergency in space. Chinese officials tapped into this rescue capability with Shenzhou 22 this month.

China’s actions with the Shenzhou program this month are evidence of a mature human spaceflight program. In parallel with operations on the Tiangong space station, China is developing new rockets, a deep space capsule, and a human-rated lunar lander to carry astronauts to the Moon by 2030.

Updated at 4 pm EST (21: 00 UTC) with more details from the China Manned Space Agency.

China launches an emergency lifeboat to bring three astronauts back to Earth Read More »

Rivals object to SpaceX’s Starship plans in Florida—who’s interfering with whom?

cape canaveral space force station, Kennedy Space Center, launch, military space, NASA, new glenn, Space, spacex, starship, united launch alliance, US Space Force / Kris Guyer / November 24, 2025

“We’re going to continue to treat any LOX-methane vehicle with 100 percent TNT blast equivalency.”

Artist’s illustration of Starships stacked on two launch pads at the Space Force’s Space Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Credit: SpaceX

The commander of the military unit responsible for running the Cape Canaveral spaceport in Florida expects SpaceX to begin launching Starship rockets there next year.

Launch companies with facilities near SpaceX’s Starship pads are not pleased. SpaceX’s two chief rivals, Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance, complained last year that SpaceX’s proposal of launching as many as 120 Starships per year from Florida’s Space Coast could force them to routinely clear personnel from their launch pads for safety reasons.

This isn’t the first time Blue Origin and ULA have tried to throw up roadblocks in front of SpaceX. The companies sought to prevent NASA from leasing a disused launch pad to SpaceX in 2013, but they lost the fight.

Col. Brian Chatman, commander of a Space Force unit called Space Launch Delta 45, confirmed to reporters on Friday that Starship launches will sometimes restrict SpaceX’s neighbors from accessing their launch pads—at least in the beginning. Space Launch Delta 45, formerly known as the 45th Space Wing, operates the Eastern Range, which oversees launch safety from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and NASA’s nearby Kennedy Space Center.

Chatman’s unit is responsible for ensuring all personnel remain outside of danger areas during testing and launch operations. The range’s responsibility extends to public safety outside the gates of the spaceport.

“There is no better time to be here on the Space Coast than where we are at today,” Chatman said. “We are breaking records on the launch manifest. We are getting capability on orbit that is essential to national security, and we’re doing that at a time of strategic challenge.”

SpaceX is well along in constructing a Starship launch site on NASA property at Kennedy Space Center within the confines of Launch Complex-39A, where SpaceX also launches its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket. The company wants to build another Starship launch site on Space Force property a few miles to the south.

“Early to mid-next year is when we anticipate Starship coming out here to be able to launch,” Chatman said. “We’ll have the range ready to support at that time.”

Enter the Goliath

Starship and its Super Heavy booster combine to form the largest rocket ever built. Its newest version stands more than 400 feet (120 meters) tall with more than 11 million pounds (5,000 metric tons) of combustible methane and liquid oxygen propellants. That will be replaced by a taller rocket, perhaps as soon as 2027, with about 20 percent more propellant onboard.

While there’s also risk with Starships and Super Heavy boosters returning to Cape Canaveral from space, safety officials worry about what would happen if a Starship and Super Heavy booster detonated with their propellant tanks full. The concern is the same for all rockets, which is why officials evacuate predetermined keep-out zones around launch pads that are fueled up for flight.

But the keep-out zones around SpaceX’s Starship launch pads will extend farther than those around the other launch sites at Cape Canaveral. First, Starship is simply much bigger and uses more propellant than any other rocket. Secondly, Starship’s engines consume methane fuel in combination with liquid oxygen, a blend commonly known as LOX/methane or methalox.

And finally, Starship lacks the track record of older rockets like the Falcon 9, adding a degree of conservatism to the Space Force’s risk calculations. Other launch pads will inevitably fall within the footprint of Starship’s range safety keep-out zones, also known as blast danger areas, or BDAs.

SpaceX’s Starship and Super Heavy booster lift off from Starbase, Texas, in March 2025. Credit: SpaceX

The danger area will be larger for an actual launch, but workers will still need to clear areas closer to Starship launch pads during static fire tests, when the rocket fires its engines while remaining on the ground. This is what prompted ULA and Blue Origin to lodge their protests.

“They understand neighboring operations,” Chatman said in a media roundtable on Friday. “They understand that we will allow the maximum efficiency possible to facilitate their operations, but there will be times that we’re not going to let them go to their launch complex because it’s neighboring a hazardous activity.”

The good news for these other companies is that Eastern Range’s keep-out zones will almost certainly get smaller by the time SpaceX gets anywhere close to 120 Starship launches per year. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is currently launching at a similar cadence. The blast danger areas for those launches are small and short-lived because the Space Force’s confidence in the Falcon 9’s safety is “extremely high,” Chatman said.

“From a blast damage assessment perspective, specific to the Falcon 9, we know what that keep-out area is,” Chatman said. “It’s the new combination of new fuels—LOX/methane—which is kind of a game-changer as we look at some of the heavy vehicles that are coming to launch. We just don’t have the analysis on to be able to say, ‘Hey, from a testing perspective, how small can we reduce the BDA and be safe?’”

Methane has become a popular fuel choice, supplanting refined kerosene, liquid hydrogen, or solid fuels commonly used on previous generations of rockets. Methane leaves behind less soot than kerosene, easing engine reusability, while it’s simpler to handle than liquid hydrogen.

Aside from Starship, Blue Origin’s New Glenn and ULA’s Vulcan rockets use liquified natural gas, a fuel very similar to methane. Both rockets are smaller than Starship, but Blue Origin last week unveiled the design of a souped-up New Glenn rocket that will nearly match Starship’s scale.

A few years ago, NASA, the Space Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration decided to look into the explosive potential of methalox rockets. There had been countless tests of explosions of gaseous methane, but data on detonations of liquid methane and liquid oxygen was scarce at the time—just a couple of tests at less than 10 metric tons, according to NASA. So, the government’s default position was to assume an explosion would be equivalent to the energy released by the same amount of TNT. This assumption drives the large keep-out zones the Space Force has drawn around SpaceX’s future Starship launch pads, one of which is seen in the map below.

This map from a Space Force environmental impact statement shows potential restricted access zones around SpaceX’s proposed Starship launch site at Space Launch Complex-37. The restricted zones cover launch pads operated by United Launch Alliance, Relativity Space, and Stoke Space. Credit: SpaceX

Spending millions to blow stuff up

Chatman said the Space Force is prepared to update its blast danger areas once its government partners, SpaceX, and Blue Origin complete testing and analyze their results. Over dozens of tests, engineers are examining how methane and liquid oxygen react to different kinds of accidents, such as impact velocity, pressure, mass ratio, or how much propellant is in the mix.

“That is ongoing currently,” Chatman said. “[We are] working in close partnership with SpaceX and Blue Origin on the LOX/methane combination and the explicit equivalency to identify how much we can … reduce that blast radius. Those discussions are happening, have been happening the last couple years, and are looking to culminate here in ’26.

“Until we get that data from the testing that is ongoing and the analysis that needs to occur, we’re going to continue to treat any LOX-methane vehicle with 100 percent TNT blast equivalency, and have a maximized keep-out zone, simply from a public safety perspective,” Chatman said.

The data so far show promising results. “We do expect that BDA to shrink,” he said. “We expect that to shrink based on some of the initial testing that has been done and the initial data reviews that have been done.”

That’s imperative, not just for Starship’s neighbors at the Cape Canaveral spaceport, but for SpaceX itself. The company forecasts a future in which it will launch Starships more often than the Falcon 9, requiring near-continuous operations at multiple launch pads.

Chatman mentioned one future scenario in which SpaceX might want to launch Starships in close proximity to one another from neighboring pads.

“At that point in the future, I do anticipate the blast damage assessments to shrink down based on the testing that will have been accomplished and dataset will have been reviewed, [and] that we’ll be in a comfortable set to be able to facilitate all launch operations. But until we have that data, until I’m comfortable with what that data shows, with regards to reducing the BDA, keep-out zone, we’re going to continue with the 100 percent TNT equivalency just from a public safety perspective.”

SpaceX has performed explosive LOX/methane tests, including the one seen here, at its development facility in McGregor, Texas. Credit: SpaceX

The Commercial Space Federation, a lobbying group, submitted written testimony to Congress in 2023 arguing the government should be using “existing industry data” to inform its understanding of the explosive potential methane and liquid oxygen. That data, the federation said, suggests the government should set its TNT blast equivalency to no greater than 25 percent, a change that would greatly reduce the size of keep-out zones around launch pads. The organization’s members include prominent methane users SpaceX, Blue Origin, Relativity Space, and Stoke Space, all of which have launch sites at Cape Canaveral.

The government’s methalox testing plans were expected to cost at least $80 million, according to the Commercial Space Federation.

The concern among engineers is that liquid oxygen and methane are highly miscible, meaning they mix together easily, raising the risk of a “condensed phase detonation” with “significantly higher overpressures” than rockets with liquid hydrogen or kerosene fuels. Small-scale mixtures of liquid oxygen and liquified natural gas have “shown a broad detonable range with yields greater than that of TNT,” NASA wrote in 2023.

SpaceX released some basic results of its own methalox detonation tests in September, before the government draws its own conclusions on the matter. The company said it conducted “extensive testing” to refine blast danger areas to “be commensurate with the physics of new launch systems.”

Like the Commercial Space Federation, SpaceX said government officials are relying on “highly conservative approaches to establishing blast danger areas, simply because they lack the data to make refined, accurate clear zones. In the absence of data, clear areas of LOX/methane rockets have defaulted to very large zones that could be disruptive to operations.”

More like an airport

SpaceX said it has conducted sub-scale methalox detonation tests “in close collaboration with NASA,” while also gathering data from full-scale Starship tests in Starbase, Texas, including information from test flights and from recent ground test failures. SpaceX controls much of the land around its South Texas facility, so there’s little interruption to third parties when Starships launch from there.

“With this data, SpaceX has been able to establish a scientifically robust, physics-based yield calculation that will help ‘fill the gap’ in scientific knowledge regarding LOX/methane rockets,” SpaceX said.

The company did not disclose the yield calculation, but it shared maps showing its proposed clear areas around the future Starship launch sites at Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center. They are significantly smarter than the clear areas originally envisioned by the Space Force and NASA, but SpaceX says it uses “actual test data on explosive yield and include a conservative factor of safety.”

The proposed clear distances will have no effect on any other operational launch site or on traffic on the primary north-south road crossing the spaceport, the company said. “SpaceX looks forward to having an open, honest, and reasonable discussion based on science and data regarding spaceport operations with industry colleagues.”

SpaceX will have that opportunity next month. The Space Force and NASA are convening a “reverse industry day” in mid-December during which launch companies will bring their ideas for the future of the Cape Canaveral spaceport to the government. The spaceport has hosted 101 space launches so far this year, an annual record dominated by SpaceX’s rapid-fire Falcon 9 launch cadence.

Chatman anticipates about the same number—perhaps 100 to 115 launches—from Florida’s Space Coast next year, and some forecasts show 300 to 350 launches per year by 2035. The numbers could go down before they rise again. “As we bring on larger lift capabilities like Starship and follow-on large launch capabilities out here to the Eastern Range, that will reduce the total number of launches, because we can get more mass to orbit with heavier lift vehicles,” Chatman said.

Blue Origin’s first recovered New Glenn booster returned to the company’s launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, last week after a successful launch and landing. Credit: Blue Origin

Launch companies have some work to do to make those numbers become real. Space Force officials have identified their own potential bottlenecks, including a shortage of facilities for preparing satellites for launch and the flow of commodities like propellants and high-pressure gases into the spaceport.

Concerns as mundane as traffic jams are now enough of a factor to consider using automated scanners at vehicle inspection points and potentially adding a dedicated lane for slow-moving transporters carrying rocket boosters from one place to another across the launch base, according to Chatman. This is becoming more important as SpaceX, and now Blue Origin, routinely shuttle their reusable rockets from place to place.

Space Force officials largely attribute the steep climb in launch rates at Cape Canaveral to the launch industry’s embrace of automated self-destruct mechanisms. These pyrotechnic devices have largely replaced manual flight termination systems, which require ground support from a larger team of range safety engineers, including radar operators and flight control officers with the authority to send a destruct command to the rocket if it flies off course. Now, that is all done autonomously on most US launch vehicles.

The Space Force mandated that launch companies using military spaceports switch to autonomous safety systems by October 1 2025, but military officials issued waivers for human-in-the-loop destruct devices to continue flying on United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket, NASA’s Space Launch System, and the US Navy’s ballistic missile fleet. That means those launches will be more labor-intensive for the Space Force, but the Atlas V is nearing retirement, and the SLS and the Navy only occasionally appear on the Cape Canaveral launch schedule.

Listing image: SpaceX

Rivals object to SpaceX’s Starship plans in Florida—who’s interfering with whom? Read More »

It’s official: Boeing’s next flight of Starliner will be allowed to carry cargo only

Boeing, dragon, NASA, Space, space.starliner / Tim Belzer / November 24, 2025

The US space agency ended months of speculation about the next flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, confirming Monday that the vehicle will carry only cargo to the International Space Station.

NASA and Boeing are now targeting no earlier than April 2026 to fly the uncrewed Starliner-1 mission, the space agency said. Launching by next April will require completion of rigorous test, certification, and mission readiness activities, NASA added in a statement.

“NASA and Boeing are continuing to rigorously test the Starliner propulsion system in preparation for two potential flights next year,” said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, in a statement.

Reducing crewed missions

NASA also said it has reached an agreement with Boeing to modify the Commercial Crew contract, signed in 2014, that called for six crewed flights to the space station following certification of the spacecraft. Now the plan is to fly Starliner-1 carrying cargo, and then up to three additional missions before the space station is retired.

“This modification allows NASA and Boeing to focus on safely certifying the system in 2026, execute Starliner’s first crew rotation when ready, and align our ongoing flight planning for future Starliner missions based on station’s operational needs through 2030,” Stich said.

SpaceX and Boeing were both awarded contracts in 2014 to develop crewed spacecraft and fly six operational missions to the space station. SpaceX, with its Crew Dragon vehicle, flew a successful crew test flight in mid-2020 and its first operational mission before the end of that year. Most recently, the Crew-11 mission launched in August, with Crew-12 presently scheduled for February 15.

It’s official: Boeing’s next flight of Starliner will be allowed to carry cargo only Read More »

Rocket Lab chief opens up about Neutron delays, New Glenn’s success, and NASA science

pete beck, rocket lab, Space / Tim Belzer / November 24, 2025

“In the end of the day, NASA has to capture the public’s imagination.”

Peter Beck, founder and chief executive officer of Rocket Lab, during TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco on October 28, 2024. Credit: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The company that pioneered small launch has had a big year.

Rocket Lab broke its annual launch record with the Electron booster—17 successful missions this year, and counting—and is close to bringing its much larger Neutron rocket to the launch pad.

The company also expanded its in-space business, including playing a key role in supporting the landing of Firefly’s Blue Ghost mission on the Moon and building two small satellites just launched to Mars.

Overall, it has been quite a ride for the company founded nearly two decades ago in New Zealand by Peter Beck. A new book about the company’s origins and aspirations, The Launch of Rocket Lab, tells the story of the company’s rise in words and grand images.

Ars recently spoke with Beck about Rocket Lab’s past, present, and future. This interview has been edited lightly for clarity.

Ars: In reading through the book and considering the history of Rocket Lab, I’m continually amazed that a handful of engineers in the country with no space program, no space heritage, built the world’s second most accomplished commercial launch company. What do you attribute that success to?

Peter Beck: It’s hard to know. But there’s a few elements within Rocket Lab that have always remained steadfast, no matter what we do or how big we get. And I think a lot of space companies have tried to see how much they can get away with. And it turns out, in this industry, you just can’t get away with taking very many shortcuts at all. So I think that’s part of it. The attitude of our organization is like, nothing’s too big, nothing’s too hard. We just make it happen. The team works extremely hard. If you drive past the Rocket Lab car park on a Sunday, it looks just like the SpaceX car park on a Sunday. And, you know, the team is very mission-driven. They’re always fighting for a goal, which I think is important. And then, above anything, I just think we can never outspend Elon (Musk) and Jeff (Bezos). We have to out-hustle. And that’s just the reality. The Rocket Lab hustle comes down to just not accepting no as an answer. If a barrier comes up a lot of space companies, or a lot of companies in general, whether its regulatory or technical, it’s easy to submit to the problem, rather than just continue to attack it.

Ars: Electron keeps going. In fact, you’ve just flown a record 17th mission this year, and you continue to sign large deals. How has Electron survived the era of rideshare missions on the Falcon 9?

Beck: We’ve always had the thesis that there is a need for a dedicated small launch. You can put as many Bandwagons and as many Transporters as you want, and you can reduce the price to unsustainably low levels as long as you want. It doesn’t make any difference to us, because it’s a totally different product. As folks are building out constellations, it’s no use just getting dumped out in one orbit. So a lot of Electrons these days are just building out constellations for folks where they have optimized for a specific altitude and inclination and so forth. And we can hit those every time. And if you amortize the cost of launch over the actual lifetime of that constellation and the service that it can provide, it’s cheap, and it’s something rideshares can never deliver.

Ars: It’s surprising to me that after so many years and so many startups, there really isn’t a viable competitor in Electron’s class anywhere in the world.

Beck: It’s pretty hard to build a small rocket. I call it the pressure transducer equilibrium. A pressure transducer on a little rocket is a meaningful amount of mass. A pressure transducer on Neutron is totally irrelevant. Just throw 10 at them, and who cares? But on Electron, if you throw 10 pressure transducers at a problem, then you know, you’ve added a kilo. That’s a meaningful portion of the lift capacity of the vehicle. And there’s no super-magic store where you can go and buy a pressure transducer that scales with the size of the rocket. So you end up with a bunch of stuff that just doesn’t scale, that contributes meaningful mass to the vehicle. If you look at Electron’s payload performance, it’s really high for the size of that rocket. So that’s really hard to do because in an instance where you would throw 10 pressure transducers at a problem, we can only afford to throw one at Electron, but we still want the same redundancy and the same reliability and all of those kinds of things. So that just drives really, really difficult engineering solutions.

And then from a financial standpoint, it’s got a sticker price of $8.5 million, let’s call it. Your flight safety team doesn’t care if it’s a big rocket or a little rocket. Your range team doesn’t care if they’re opening a 12-inch valve or a 2-inch valve. All those teams just have to become ruthlessly efficient at doing that work. So if you go to a big rocket, you might have a flight safety team of 20 people. You come here, it has to be like three. So you have to find ways of really streamlining all those processes. And every little person and dollar and gram has to be ringed out.

Rocket Lab launches an Electron booster with a previously flown engine on Thursday. Credit: Rocket Lab

Ars: What’s going on with the Electron reuse program? My sense is that you’ve kind of learned what you needed to know and are moving on.

Beck: Yeah, that’s pretty much it. It was a hugely valuable learning tool, but if you look at an Electron recovery, we might recover sort of a million dollars worth of stage one booster. And of course, the more we make, the cheaper they get, because we’re continuing to scale so that it’s ever decreasing that return. Quite frankly, and honestly, it’s just like, do we have reusability and recovery teams working on something that returns a million dollars every time it flies? Or, do we have them working on Neutron, where it’s tens of millions of dollars every time you fly? So it’s just about, you know, directing the resource for the biggest bang for the buck.

Ars: I listened to your recent earnings call where you discussed Neutron’s development and delay into 2026. What are the biggest issues you face in getting Neutron over the finish line?

Beck: It would be actually easier if there was an issue, because then I could just say something blew up, or this is a problem. But there’s no real issues. It’s just that we’re not going to put something on the pad that doesn’t meet kind of the standard that’s made us successful. Say something might pass the qualification test, but if we see something in a strain gauge on the back of the panel, or something that we don’t understand, we just don’t move on. We’re not going to move on unless we understand every little element of what’s going on. Maybe I’m on some kind of spectrum for details, but that’s what’s kept us successful. It’s just a bigger rocket, and it’s got more unique features like hungry hippo (the payload fairing opening mechanism) and giant carbon structures. So, you know, it’s not like anything has shit the bed. It’s just a big machine, and there’s some new stuff, and we want to make sure we don’t lose the magic of what we created. A little bit of time now can save a huge amount of heartbreak later on.

Ars: Toward the end of the book, you say that Rocket Lab is best positioned to compete with SpaceX in medium-lift launch, and break up the Falcon 9 monopoly. What is your sense of the competitive landscape going forward? We just saw a New Glenn launch and land, and that was really impressive—

Beck: Bloody impressive. Jeff (Bezos) laid down a new bar. That was incredible. People forget that he’s been working on it for 22 years, but even so, that was impressive.

Ars: Yes, it’s been a journey for them. Anyway, there’s also Vulcan, but that’s only flown one time this year, so they’ve got a ways to go. Then Stoke and Relativity are working at it. What’s your view of your competition going forward?

Beck: I hate comparing it to aviation, but I call medium-class lifters the Boeing 737 of the industry. Then you got your A380s, which are your Starships and your New Glenns. And then you’ve got your Electrons, which are your private jets. And you know, if you look at the aviation sector, nobody comes in and just brings an airplane in and wipes everybody out, because there’s different needs and different missions. And just like there’s a 737 there’s an A320 and that’s kind of what Neutron is intending to be. We had a tremendous pull from our customers, both government and commercial, for alternatives to what’s out there.

The other thing to remember is, for our own aspirations, we need a high-cadence, reusable, low-cost, multi-ton lift capability. I think I’ve been clear that I think the large space companies of the future are going to be a little bit blurry. Are they a space company, or are they something else? But there’s one thing that is absolutely sure, that if you have multi-ton access to orbit in a reusable, low-cost way, it’s going to be very, very difficult to compete with if you’re someone who doesn’t have that capability. And if you look at our friends at SpaceX, yeah, Starlinks are great satellites and all the rest of it. But what really enabled Starlink was the Falcon 9. Launch is a difficult business. It’s kind of lumpy and deeply complex, but at the end of the day, it is the access to orbit. And, you know, having multi-ton access to orbit is just critical. If you’re thinking that you want to try and build one of the biggest space companies in the world, then you just have to have that.

Ars: Rocket Lab has expressed interest in Mars recently, both the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter and a Mars Sample Return mission. As Jared Isaacman and NASA think about commercial exploration of Mars, what would you tell them about what Rocket Lab could bring to the table?

Beck: I’m a great believer that government should do things for which it makes no sense for commercial entities to do, and commercial should do the things that it makes no sense for governments to do. Consider Mars Sample Return, we looked at that, and the plan was $11 billion and 20 years? It’s just, come on. It was crazy. And I don’t want to take the shine off. It is a deeply technical, deeply difficult mission to do. But it can be done, and it can be done commercially, and it can be done at a fraction of the price. So let industry have at it.

And look, Eric, I love planetary science, right? I love exploring the planets, and I think that if you have a space company that’s capable of doing it, it’s almost your duty for the knowledge of the species to go and do those sorts of things. Now, we’re a publicly traded company, so we have to make margin along the way. We’ve proven we can do that. Look at ESCAPADE. All up, it was like $50 million cost, launched, and on its way to Mars. I mean, that’s the sort of thing we need to be doing, right? That’s great bang for your buck. And you know, as you mentioned, we’re pushing hard on the MTO. The reality is that if you’re going to do anything on Mars, whether it’s scientific or human, you’ve got to have the comms there. It’s just basic infrastructure you’ve got to have there first. It’s all very well to do all the sexy stuff and put some humans in a can and send them off to Mars. That’s great. But everybody expects the communication just to be there, and you’ve got to put the foundations in first. So we think that’s a really important mission, and something that we can do, and something we can contribute to the first humans landing on Mars.

Rocket Lab’s Neutron rocket is shown in this rendering delivering a stack of satellites into orbit. Credit: Rocket Lab

Ars: You mentioned ESCAPADE. How’s your relationship with Jeff Bezos? I heard there was some tension last year because Rocket Lab was being asked to prepare the satellite for launch, even when it was clear New Glenn was not going to make the Mars window.

Beck: I know you want me to say yes, there is, but the honest truth is absolutely zero. I know David (Limp, Blue Origin’s CEO) super well. We’re great friends. Jeff and I were texting backwards and forwards during the launch. There’s just honestly none. And you know that they gave us a great ride. They were bang on the numbers. It was awesome. Yeah, sure, it would have been great to get there early. But it’s a rocket program, right? Nobody can show me a rocket program that turned up exactly on time. And yep, it may have been obvious that it might not have been able to launch on the first (window), but we knew there’s always other ways. Worst-case scenario, we have to go into storage for a little bit. These missions are years and years long. So what’s a little bit longer?

Ars: Speaking of low-cost science missions, I know Isaacman is interested in commercial planetary missions. Lots of $4 billion planetary missions just aren’t sustainable. If NASA commits to commercial development of satellite buses and spacecraft like it did to commercial cargo and crew, what could planetary exploration look like a decade from now?

Beck: I think that’d be tremendously exciting. One of the reasons why we did CAPSTONE was to prove that you can go to the Moon for $10 million. Now, we lost a lot of money on that mission, so that ultimately didn’t prove to be true. But it wasn’t crazy amounts, and we still got there miles cheaper than anybody else could have ever got there. And ESCAPADE, we have good margins on, and it’s just a true success, right? Touch wood to date, like we’ve got a long way to go, but success in the fact that the spacecraft were built, delivered, launched, and commissioned.

This is the thing. Take your billion-dollar mission. How many $50 million missions, or $100 million missions, could you do? Imagine the amount of science you can do. I think part of the reason why the public gets jaded with some of these science missions is because they happen once a decade, and they’ve got billions of dollars of price tags attached to them. It’s kind of transitorily exciting when they happen, but they’re so far apart. In the end of the day, NASA has to capture the public’s imagination, because the public are funding it. So it has to seem relevant, relevant to mum and dad at home. And you know, when mum and dad are home and it’s tough, and then they just hear billions of dollars and, you know, years of overrun and all the rest of it, how can they feel good about that? Whereas, if they can spend much less and deliver it on time and have a constant stream of really interesting missions in science, I think that it’s great for public justification. I think it’s great for planetary science, because obviously you’re iterating on your results, and it’s great for the whole community to just have a string of missions. And also, I think it’s great for US space supremacy to be blasting around the Solar System all the time, rather than just now and again.

Ars: Ok Pete, it’s November 18. How confident should we be in a Neutron launch next year? 50/50?

Beck: Hopefully better than 50/50. That would be a definite fail. We’re taking the time to get it right. I always caveat anything, Eric, that it’s a rocket program, and we’ve got some big tests in front of us. But to date, if you look at the program, it’s been super smooth; like we haven’t exploded tanks, we haven’t exploded engines. We haven’t had any major failure, especially when we’re pushing some new boundaries and some new technology. So I think it’s going really, really smoothly, and as long as it continues to go smoothly, then I think we’re in good shape.

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.

Rocket Lab chief opens up about Neutron delays, New Glenn’s success, and NASA science Read More »