Space

a-japanese-lander-crashed-on-the-moon-after-losing-track-of-its-location

A Japanese lander crashed on the Moon after losing track of its location

clps, ispace, Japan, JAXA, moon, Science, Space / /

“It’s not impossible, so how do we overcome our hurdles?”

Takeshi Hakamada, founder and CEO of ispace, attends a press conference in Tokyo on June 6, 2025, to announce the outcome of his company’s second lunar landing attempt. Credit: Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP via Getty Images

A robotic lander developed by a Japanese company named ispace plummeted to the Moon’s surface Thursday, destroying a small rover and several experiments intended to demonstrate how future missions could mine and harvest lunar resources.

Ground teams at ispace’s mission control center in Tokyo lost contact with the Resilience lunar lander moments before it was supposed to touch down in a region called Mare Frigoris, or the Sea of Cold, a basaltic plain in the Moon’s northern hemisphere.

A few hours later, ispace officials confirmed what many observers suspected. The mission was lost. It’s the second time ispace has failed to land on the Moon in as many tries.

“We wanted to make Mission 2 a success, but unfortunately we haven’t been able to land,” said Takeshi Hakamada, the company’s founder and CEO.

Ryo Ujiie, ispace’s chief technology officer, said the final data received from the Resilience lander—assuming it was correct—showed it at an altitude of approximately 630 feet (192 meters) and descending too fast for a safe landing. “The deceleration was not enough. That was a fact,” Ujiie told reporters in a press conference. “We failed to land, and we have to analyze the reasons.”

The company said in a press release that a laser rangefinder used to measure the lander’s altitude “experienced delays in obtaining valid measurement values.” The downward-facing laser fires light pulses toward the Moon during descent, and clocks the time it takes to receive a reflection. This time delay at light speed tells the lander’s guidance system how far it is above the lunar surface. But something went wrong in the altitude measurement system on Thursday.

“As a result, the lander was unable to decelerate sufficiently to reach the required speed for the planned lunar landing,” ispace said. “Based on these circumstances, it is currently assumed that the lander likely performed a hard landing on the lunar surface.”

Controllers sent a command to reboot the lander in hopes of reestablishing communication, but the Resilience spacecraft remained silent.

“Given that there is currently no prospect of a successful lunar landing, our top priority is to swiftly analyze the telemetry data we have obtained thus far and work diligently to identify the cause,” Hakamada said in a statement. “We will strive to restore trust by providing a report of the findings to our shareholders, payload customers, Hakuto-R partners, government officials, and all supporters of ispace.”

Overcoming obstacles

The Hakuto name harkens back to ispace’s origin in 2010 as a contender for the Google Lunar X-Prize, a sweepstakes that offered a $20 million grand prize to the first privately funded team to put a lander on the Moon. Hakamada’s group was called Hakuto, which means “white rabbit” in Japanese. The prize shut down in 2018 without a winner, leading some of the teams to dissolve or find new purpose. Hakamada stayed the course, raised more funding, and rebooted the program under the name Hakuto-R.

It’s a story of resilience, hence the name of ispace’s second lunar lander. The mission made it closer to the Moon than the ispace’s first landing attempt in 2023, but Thursday’s failure is a blow to Hakamada’s project.

“As a fact, we tried twice and we haven’t been able to land on the Moon,” Hakamada said through an interpreter. “So we have to say it’s hard to land on the Moon, technically. We know it’s not easy. It’s not something that everyone can do. We know it’s hard, but the important point is it’s not impossible. The US private companies have succeeded in landing, and also JAXA in Japan has succeeded in landing, so it’s not impossible. So how do we overcome our hurdles?”

The Resilience lander and Tenacious rover, seen mounted near the top of the spacecraft, inside a test facility at the Tsukuba Space Center in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, on Thursday, Sept. 12, 2024. Credit: Toru Hanai/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In April 2023, ispace’s first lander crashed on the Moon due to a similar altitude measurement problem. The spacecraft thought it was on the surface of the Moon, but was actually firing its engine to hover at an altitude of 3 miles (5 kilometers). The spacecraft ran out of fuel and went into a free fall before impacting the Moon.

Engineers blamed software as the most likely reason for the altitude-measurement problem. During descent, ispace’s lander passed over a 10,000-foot-tall (3,000-meter) cliff, and the spacecraft’s computer interpreted the sudden altitude change as erroneous.

Ujiie, who leads ispace’s technical teams, said the failure mode Thursday was “similar” to that of the first mission two years ago. But at least in ispace’s preliminary data reviews, engineers saw different behavior from the Resilience lander, which flew with a new type of laser rangefinder after ispace’s previous supplier stopped producing the device.

“From Mission 1 to Mission 2, we improved the software,” Ujiie said. “Also, we improved how to approach the landing site… We see different phenomena from Mission 1, so we have to do more analysis to give you any concrete answers.”

If ispace landed smoothly on Thursday, the Resilience spacecraft would have deployed a small rover developed by ispace’s European subsidiary. The rover was partially funded by the Luxembourg Space Agency with support from the European Space Agency. It carried a shovel to scoop up a small amount of lunar soil and a camera to take a photo of the sample. NASA had a contract with ispace to purchase the lunar soil in a symbolic proof of concept to show how the government might acquire material from commercial mining companies in the future.

The lander also carried a water electrolyzer experiment to demonstrate technologies that could split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, critical resources for a future Moon base. Other payloads aboard the Resilience spacecraft included cameras, a food production experiment, a radiation monitor, and a Swedish art project called “MoonHouse.”

The spacecraft chassis used for ispace’s first two landing attempts was about the size of a compact car, with a mass of about 1 metric ton (2,200 pounds) when fully fueled. The company’s third landing attempt is scheduled for 2027 with a larger lander. Next time, ispace will fly to the Moon in partnership between the company’s US subsidiary and Draper Laboratory, which has a contract with NASA to deliver experiments to the lunar surface.

Track record

The Resilience lander launched in January on top of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, riding to space in tandem with a commercial Moon lander named Blue Ghost from Firefly Aerospace. Firefly’s lander took a more direct journey to the Moon and achieved a soft landing on March 2. Blue Ghost operated on the lunar surface for two weeks and completed all of its objectives.

The trajectory of ispace’s lander was slower, following a lower-energy, more fuel-efficient path to the Moon before entering lunar orbit last month. Once in orbit, the lander made a few more course corrections to line up with its landing site, then commenced its final descent on Thursday.

Thursday’s landing attempt was the seventh time a privately developed Moon lander tried to conduct a controlled touchdown on the lunar surface.

Two Texas-based companies have had the most success. One of them, Houston-based Intuitive Machines, landed its Odysseus spacecraft on the Moon in February 2024, marking the first time a commercial lander reached the lunar surface intact. But the lander tipped over after touchdown, cutting its mission short after achieving some limited objectives. A second Intuitive Machines lander reached the Moon in one piece in March of this year, but it also fell over and didn’t last as long as the company’s first mission.

Firefly’s Blue Ghost operated for two weeks after reaching the lunar surface, accomplishing all of its objectives and becoming the first fully successful privately owned spacecraft to land and operate on the Moon.

Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and a third company—Astrobotic Technology—have launched their lunar missions under contract with a NASA program aimed at fostering a commercial marketplace for transportation to the Moon. Astrobotic’s first lander failed soon after its departure from Earth. The first two missions launched by ispace were almost fully private ventures, with limited participation from the Japanese space agency, Luxembourg, and NASA.

The Earth looms over the Moon’s horizon in this image from lunar orbit captured on May 27, 2025, by ispace’s Resilience lander. Credit: ispace

Commercial travel to the Moon only began in 2019, so there’s not much of a track record to judge the industry’s prospects. When NASA started signing contracts for commercial lunar missions, the then-chief of the agency’s science vision, Thomas Zurbuchen, estimated the initial landing attempts would have a 50-50 chance of success. On the whole, NASA’s experience with Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and Astrobotic isn’t too far off from Zurbuchen’s estimate, with one full success and a couple of partial successes.

The commercial track record worsens if you include private missions from ispace and Israel’s Beresheet lander.

But ispace and Hakamada haven’t given up on the dream. The company’s third mission will launch under the umbrella of the same NASA program that contracted with Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and Astrobotic. Hakamada cited the achievements of Firefly and Intuitive Machines as evidence that the commercial model for lunar missions is a valid one.

“The ones that have the landers, there are two companies I mentioned. Also, Blue Origin maybe coming up. Also, ispace is a possibility,” Hakamada said. “So, very few companies. We would like to catch up as soon as possible.”

It’s too early to know how the failure on Thursday might impact ispace’s next mission with Draper and NASA.

“I have to admit that we are behind,” said Jumpei Nozaki, director and chief financial officer at ispace. “But we do not really think we are behind from the leading group yet. It’s too early to decide that. The players in the world that can send landers to the Moon are very few, so we still have some competitive edge.”

“Honestly, there were some times I almost cried, but I need to lead this company, and I need to have a strong will to move forward, so it’s not time for me to cry,” Hakamada said.

Photo of Stephen Clark

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.

A Japanese lander crashed on the Moon after losing track of its location Read More »

rocket-report:-spacex’s-500th-falcon-launch;-why-did-uk’s-reaction-engines-fail?

Rocket Report: SpaceX’s 500th Falcon launch; why did UK’s Reaction Engines fail?

rocket report, Space / /

SpaceX’s rockets make a lot more noise, but the machinations of Texas’ newest city are underway.

Prefabricated homes painted black, white, and gray are set against the backdrop of SpaceX’s Starship rocket factory at Starbase, Texas. Credit: Sergio Flores/AFP via Getty Images

Welcome to Edition 7.47 of the Rocket Report! Let’s hope not, but the quarrel between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may be remembered as “Black Thursday” for the US space program. A simmering disagreement over Trump’s signature “One Big Beautiful Bill” coursing its way through Congress erupted into public view, with two of the most powerful Americans trading insults and threats on social media. Trump suggested the government should terminate “Elon’s governmental contracts and subsidies.” Musk responded with a post saying SpaceX will begin decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft used to transport crew and cargo to the International Space Station. This could go a number of ways, but it’s hard to think anything good will come of it.

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

Blue Origin flies aces suborbital space shot. Blue Origin, the space company founded and owned by Jeff Bezos, launched six people to the edge of space Saturday, May 31, from Bezos’ ranch in West Texas, CBS News reports. A hydrogen-fueled New Shepard booster propelled a crew capsule, equipped with the largest windows of any operational spaceship, to an altitude of nearly 65 miles (105 kilometers), just above the internationally recognized boundary between the discernible atmosphere and space, before beginning the descent to landing. The passengers included three Americans—Aymette Medina Jorge, Gretchen Green, and Paul Jeris—along with Canadian Jesse Williams, New Zealand’s Mark Rocket, and Panamanian Jaime Alemán, who served as his country’s ambassador to the United States.

If you missed it … You wouldn’t be alone. This was the 32nd flight of Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket, and the company’s 12th human flight. From a technical perspective, these flights aren’t breaking any new ground in human spaceflight or rocketry. However, each flight provides an opportunity for wealthy or well-connected passengers to view Earth from a perspective only about 700 people have seen before. That’s really cool, but most of these launches are no longer newsworthy, and it takes a devoted fan of spaceflight to tune in to a New Shepard flight on a summertime Saturday morning. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

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

Sign Me Up!

Momentum for Amentum. The US Space Force awarded Jacobs Technology a contract worth up to $4 billion over 10 years to provide engineering and technical services at the nation’s primary space launch ranges, as the military seeks to modernize aging infrastructure and boost capacity amid a surge in commercial space activity, Space News reports. Jacobs Technology is now part of Amentum, a defense contractor based in Chantilly, Virginia. Amentum merged with Jacobs in September 2024. The so-called “Space Force Range Contract” covers maintenance, sustainment, systems engineering and integration services for the Eastern and Western ranges until 2035. The Eastern Range operates from Patrick Space Force Base in Florida, while the Western Range is based at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

Picking from the menu … The contract represents a significant shift in how space launch infrastructure is funded. Under the new arrangement, commercial launch service providers—which now account for the majority of launches at both ranges—can request services or upgrades and pay for them directly, rather than having the government bear the costs upfront. This arrangement would create a more market-driven approach to range operations and potentially accelerate modernization. “Historically, the government has fronted these costs,” Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, Space Launch Delta 45 Commander and Eastern Range Director, said June 3 in a news release. “The ability of our commercial partners to directly fund their own task order will lessen the financial and administrative burden on the government and is in line with congressionally mandated financial improvement and audit readiness requirements.”

Impulse Space rakes in more cash. This week, an in-space propulsion company, Impulse Space, announced that it had raised a significant amount of money, $300 million, Ars reports. This follows a fundraising round just last year in which the Southern California-based company raised $150 million. This is one of the largest capital raises in space in a while, especially for a non-launch company. Founded by Tom Mueller, a former propulsion guru at SpaceX, Impulse Space has test-flown an orbital maneuvering vehicle called Mira on two flights over the last couple of years. The company is developing a larger vehicle, named Helios, that could meaningfully improve the ability of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy to transport large payloads to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations in the Solar System.

Reacting to the market … The Mira vehicle was originally intended to provide “last-mile” services for spacecraft launched as part of rideshare missions. “The reality is the market for that is not very good,” said Eric Romo, the company’s CEO. Instead, Impulse Space found interest from the Space Force to use Mira as an agile platform for hosting electronic warfare payloads and other military instrumentation in orbit. “Mira wasn’t necessarily designed out of the gate for that, but what we found out after we flew it successfully was, the Space Force said, ‘Hey, we know what that thing’s for,” Romo said. Helios is a larger beast, with an engine capable of producing 15,000 pounds of thrust and the ability to move a multi-ton payload from low-Earth orbit to geostationary space in less than a day. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

Falcon rockets surpass 500 flights. SpaceX was back at the launch pad for a midweek flight from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. This particular flight, designated Starlink 11-22, marked the company’s 500th orbital launch attempt with a Falcon rocket, including Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy, Spaceflight Now reports. This milestone coincided with the 15th anniversary of the first Falcon 9 launch on June 4, 2010. The day before, SpaceX launched the 500th Falcon rocket overall, counting a single suborbital flight in 2020 that tested the Dragon spacecraft’s abort system. The launch on Wednesday from California was the 68th Falcon 9 launch of the year.

Chasing Atlas … The soon-to-be-retired Atlas rocket holds the record for the most-flown family of space launchers in the United States, with 684 launches to date, beginning with Atlas ICBMs in the Cold War to the Atlas V rocket flying today. In reality, however, the Atlas V shares virtually nothing in common with the Atlas ICBM, other than its name. The Atlas V has new engines, more modern computers, and a redesigned booster stage that ended the line of pressure-stabilized “balloon tanks” that flew on Atlas rockets from 1957 until 2005. The Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy share more heritage, all using variants of SpaceX’s Merlin engine. If you consider the Atlas rocket as the US record-holder for most space launches, SpaceX’s Falcon family is on pace to reach 684 flights before the end of 2026.

SpaceX delivers again for GPS. The Space Force successfully sent its latest GPS III satellite to orbit Friday, May 30, demonstrating the ability to prepare and launch a military spacecraft on condensed timelines, Defense News reports. The satellite flew on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida. GPS III, built by Lockheed Martin, is the latest version of the navigation and timing system and is designed to provide improved anti-jamming capabilities. It will broadcast additional military and civilian signals.

More anti-jamming capability … The launch was the second in a series of Rapid Response Trailblazer missions the Space Force is running to test whether it can quickly launch high-value satellites in response to national security needs. The goal is to condense a process that can take up to two years down to a handful of months. The first mission, which flew in December, reduced the time between launch notification and lift off to around five months—and the May 30 mission shortened it even further, to around 90 days. In addition to demonstrating the launch could be done on an accelerated timeline, Space Force officials were motivated to swap this satellite from United Launch Alliance’s long-delayed Vulcan rocket to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 in order to add more tech to the GPS constellation to counter jamming and spoofing. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

An autopsy on Reaction Engines. An article published by the BBC this week recounts some of the backstory behind the bankruptcy of Reaction Engines, a British company that labored for 35 years to develop a revolutionary air-breathing rocket engine. According to the vision of the company’s leaders, the new engine, called SABRE, could have powered a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane or hypersonic vehicles within the atmosphere. If an engine like SABRE could ever be mastered, it could usher in a new era of spaceplanes that can take off and land horizontally on a runway, instead of launching vertically like a rocket.

A little too quixotic … But Reaction Engines started in an era too soon for true commercial spaceflight and couldn’t convince enough venture capital investors that the idea could compete with the likes of SpaceX. Instead, the company secured a handful of investments from large aerospace companies like Boeing, BAE Systems, and Rolls-Royce. This money allowed Reaction Engines to grow to a staff of approximately 200 employees and kept it afloat until last October, when the company went into administration and laid off its workforce. “A few people were in tears,” Richard Varvill, the company’s chief engineer, told the BBC. “A lot of them were shocked and upset because they’d hoped we could pull it off right up to the end.” It was galling for Varvill “because we were turning it around with an improved engine. Just as we were getting close to succeeding, we failed. That’s a uniquely British characteristic.” (submitted by ShuggyCoUk)

Draconian implications for Trump’s budget. New details of the Trump administration’s plans for NASA, released Friday, May 30, revealed the White House’s desire to end the development of an experimental nuclear thermal rocket engine that could have shown a new way of exploring the Solar System, Ars reports. The budget proposal’s impacts on human spaceflight and space science have been widely reported, but Trump’s plan would cut NASA’s space technology budget in half. One of the victims would be DRACO, a partnership with DARPA to develop and test the first nuclear thermal rocket engine in space.

But wait, there’s more … The budget proposal not only cancels DRACO, but it also zeros out funding for all of NASA’s nuclear propulsion projects. Proponents of nuclear propulsion say it offers several key advantages for sending heavy cargo and humans to deep space destinations, like Mars. “This budget provides no funding for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion and Nuclear Electric Propulsion projects,” officials wrote in the NASA budget request. “These efforts are costly investments, would take many years to develop, and have not been identified as the propulsion mode for deep space missions. The nuclear propulsion projects are terminated to achieve cost savings and because there are other nearer-term propulsion alternatives for Mars transit.” Trump’s budget request isn’t final. Both Republican-controlled houses of Congress will write their own versions of the NASA budget, which must be reconciled before going to the White House for President Trump’s signature.

Blue Origin CEO says government should get out of the launch business. Eighteen months after leaving his job as a vice president at Amazon to take over as Blue Origin’s chief executive, Dave Limp has some thoughts on how commercial companies and government agencies like NASA should explore the Solar System together. First, the government should leave launching things into space to private industry. “I think commercial folks can worry about the infrastructure,” he said. “We can do the launch. We can build the satellite buses that can get you to Mars much more frequently, that don’t cost billions of dollars. We can take a zero, and over time, maybe two zeros off of that. And if the governments around the world leave that to the commercial side, then there are a lot more resources that are freed up for the science side, for the national prestige side, and those types of things.”

Do the exotic … While commercial companies should drive the proverbial bus into the Solar System, NASA should get back to its roots in research and exploration, Limp said. “I would say, and it might be a little provocative, let’s have those smart brains look on the forward-thinking types of things, the really edge of science, planning the really exotic missions, figuring out how to get to planetary bodies we haven’t gotten to before, and staying there.” But Limp highlighted one area where he thinks government investment is needed: the Moon. He said there’s currently no commercial business case for sending people to the Moon, and the government should continue backing those efforts.

Hurdles ahead for Rocket Cargo. The Center for Biological Diversity is suing the military for details on a proposal to build a rocket test site in a remote wildlife refuge less than 900 miles from Hawaiʻi Island, Hawaiʻi Public Radio reports. The Air Force announced in March that it planned to prepare an environmental assessment for the construction and operation of two landing pads on Johnston Atoll to test the viability of using rockets to deliver military cargo loads. While the announcement didn’t mention SpaceX, that company’s Starship rocket is on contract with the Air Force Research Laboratory to work on delivering cargo anywhere in the world within an hour. Now, several conservationists have spoken out against the proposal, pointing out that Johnston is an important habitat for birds and marine species.

Scarred territory … For nearly a century, Johnston Atoll has served dual roles as a wildlife refuge and a base for US military operations, including as a nuclear test site between 1958 and 1963. In March, the Air Force said it anticipated an environmental assessment for its plans on Johnston Atoll would be available for public review in early April. So far, it has not been released. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a Freedom of Information Act request about the project. They say a determination on their request was due by May 19, but they have not received a response. The center filed a lawsuit last week to compel the military to rule on their request and release information about the project.

Getting down to business at Starbase. SpaceX’s rockets make a lot of noise at Starbase, but the machinations of setting up Texas’ newest city are in motion, too. After months of planning, SpaceX launched the city of Starbase on May 29 with its first public meeting chaired by Mayor Robert Peden and the City Commission at The Hub, a building owned by SpaceX, ValleyCentral.com reports. During the meeting, which lasted about 80 minutes, they hired a city administrator, approved standard regulations for new construction, and created a committee to guide the community’s long-term development. Voters approved the creation of Starbase on May 3, incorporating territory around SpaceX’s remote rocket factory and launch site near the US-Mexico border. SpaceX owns most of the land in Starbase and employs nearly everyone in the tiny town, including the mayor.

Property rights and zoning … The new city’s leaders have told landowners they plan to introduce land use rules that could result in changes for some residents,” KUT reports. In a letter, Starbase’s first city administrator, Kent Myers, warned local landowners that they may lose the right to continue using their property for its current use under the city’s new zoning plan. “Our goal is to ensure that the zoning plan reflects the City’s vision for balanced growth, protecting critical economic drivers, ensuring public safety, and preserving green spaces,” the letter, dated May 21, reads. This is a normal process when a city creates new zoning rules, and a new city is required by state law to notify landowners—most of which are SpaceX or its employees—of potential zoning changes so they can ask questions in a public setting. A public meeting to discuss the zoning ordinance at Starbase is scheduled for June 23.

Next three launches

June 7: Falcon 9 | SXM-10| Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 03: 19 UTC

June 8: Falcon 9 | Starlink 15-8 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, California | 13: 34 UTC

June 10: Falcon 9 | Axiom Mission 4 | Kennedy Space Center, Florida | 12: 22 UTC

Photo of Stephen Clark

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

Rocket Report: SpaceX’s 500th Falcon launch; why did UK’s Reaction Engines fail? Read More »

senate-response-to-white-house-budget-for-nasa:-keep-sls,-nix-science

Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science

budget, NASA, Senate, Space / /

This legislation, the committee said in a messaging document, “Dedicates almost $10 billion to win the new space race with China and ensure America dominates space. Makes targeted, critical investments in Mars-forward technology, Artemis Missions and Moon to Mars program, and the International Space Station.”

The reality is that it signals that Republicans in the US Senate are not particularly interested in sending humans to Mars, probably are OK with the majority of cuts to science programs at NASA, and want to keep the status quo on Artemis, including the Space Launch System rocket.

Where things go from here

It is difficult to forecast where US space policy will go from here. The very public breakup between President Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday significantly complicates the equation. At one point, Trump and Musk were both championing sending humans to Mars, but Musk is gone from the administration, and Trump may abandon that idea due to their rift.

For what it’s worth, a political appointee in NASA Communications said on Thursday that the president’s vision for space—Trump spoke of landing humans on Mars frequently during his campaign speeches—will continue to be implemented.

“NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space,” NASA’s press secretary, Bethany Stevens, said on X. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.”

Congress, it seems, may be heading in a different direction.

Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science Read More »

what-would-happen-if-trump-retaliated-against-musk’s-companies?

What would happen if Trump retaliated against Musk’s companies?

bromance, musk, Space, Tesla, Trump / /

The reason that Biden did not terminate these contracts, as Trump asserts he might well have, is because SpaceX has generally provided space services to the US government at a lower cost and on a faster timeline than its competitors. Were the Trump administration to sever its relationship with SpaceX, it would effectively set the US space enterprise back a decade or more and give China’s ascendant space program clear supremacy on the world stage.

Tesla

Although Tesla has received federal contracts over the years, these have mostly been rather small, considering the company’s size—less than $42 million between 2008 and 2024. But federal subsidies are far more important to the carmaker. The IRS clean vehicle tax credit provides up to $7,500 off the purchase price of a new EV for many buyers, and all new leased Teslas are eligible for a $7,500 commercial clean vehicle tax credit. Other tax credits exist for solar and Powerwall customers.

Additionally, Tesla has benefited extensively from selling emissions credits to other automakers, although California’s “Zero Emissions Vehicles” program and the European Union are also sources of these credits in addition to the federal government.

If the Trump administration really wanted to hurt Musk’s companies, it might be more effective to do so through regulatory agencies rather than terminating contracts that, by and large, benefit the US government.

For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could put the screws to Tesla’s efforts to develop Full Self Driving and Autopilot features in its vehicles. And the Federal Aviation Administration could stall SpaceX’s ambitious Starship program and prevent further expansion of its launch facilities.

Regardless of what actions the Trump administration could take to harm Tesla, shares of the EV maker are suffering. As of this writing, the share price is down nearly 15 percent since the market opened.

With Trump’s willingness to use the vast power of the federal government for his own whims, there really is no end to the ways in which he could harm Musk. But some of these measures would also do some self-harm to the country. Would Trump care? Will there be a rapprochement? As Musk likes to say about Starship launches, “Excitement guaranteed.”

Ars automotive editor Jonathan Gitlin contributed to this report. This post was updated on June 5 to add comments from Musk about decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft.

What would happen if Trump retaliated against Musk’s companies? Read More »

jared-isaacman-speaks-out,-and-it’s-clear-that-nasa-lost-a-visionary-leader

Jared Isaacman speaks out, and it’s clear that NASA lost a visionary leader

jared isaacman, NASA, Space / /

“There’s enough hardware now to fly a couple of missions and make sure you beat China back to the Moon,” he said. “But you can’t be stuck on this forever. This is literally the equivalency, by the way, of taking P-51 Mustangs [a fighter aircraft] from World War II and using them in Desert Storm, because we got to keep the plants open.
And that obviously makes no logical sense whatsoever.”

On his de-nomination

Isaacman said he is, politically, a moderate, although he leans right. He supports Trump’s desire to cut alleged waste and fraud from the US government, and that is what he intended to do at NASA. He also did not blame Trump for his departure, saying that a president makes a thousand decisions a day, often with a few seconds of information.

He also said he enjoyed the Senate confirmation process, which allowed him to candidly discuss his positions on NASA with individual US senators.

As for why he was removed, Isaacman said the following: “I had a pretty good idea, I don’t think the timing was much of a coincidence,” he said. “Obviously, there was more than one departure that was covered on that day.”

The phone call to Isaacman saying his nomination was being pulled came the same day that SpaceX founder Elon Musk left his position as a special advisor to the president. Musk had been supportive of Isaacman’s nomination. However, in his time running the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk had made enemies within the US government.

“There were some people who had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target,” Isaacman said. “I want to be overwhelmingly clear: I don’t fault the president.”

Although Isaacman did not name anyone, multiple sources have told Ars that it was Sergio Gor, an official in the White House Presidential Personnel Office, who moved against Isaacman after Musk left the White House. Gor was irked by Musk’s failure to consult him and other personnel officials on some decisions.

As a result of what appears to be political pettiness, NASA lost a visionary leader who had the potential to lead the space agency into the middle of the 21st century at a time when an aging agency needs to modernize. If you listen to him, losing that potential in such a way is downright painful. It’s a damn shame.

Jared Isaacman speaks out, and it’s clear that NASA lost a visionary leader Read More »

an-in-space-propulsion-company-just-raised-a-staggering-amount-of-money

An in-space propulsion company just raised a staggering amount of money

impulse space, in-space propulsion, Space, tom mueller / /

Starting small

The company’s initial product was the Mira spacecraft, powered by nitrous oxide and ethane thrusters. It can move payloads up to 300 kg around in space, and for a 100 kg payload it offers 900 m/s of Delta-V. With Mira, Impulse sought to tackle the problem of mobility once a spacecraft got into orbit.

Mira proved a success almost immediately, with the first vehicle launching in 2023 and operating for a year in space, demonstrating ample mobility before finally depleting its propellant tanks. A second mission, LEO Express-2, launched in January with several hosted payloads and, so far, has met all of its objectives. The mission remains ongoing.

Initially, it was believed that this vehicle would be useful for providing “last mile” services for spacecraft launched as a part of rideshare missions.

“The reality is the market for that is not very good,” Romo said. “If you’re gonna size that market, it’s basically the market Rocket Lab serves today, which is 25 to 30 flights a year, which is fine. You can do that, but not economically very well. Your gross margins won’t be good. Your working capital kind of sucks. So that’s not at all the market that we’re after with Mira.”

Since Mira has had ample success during its first two flights, other customers have taken notice.

“It’s a high-thrust, high-maneuverability spacecraft that can operate anywhere up to GEO,” Romo said. “And so when you’re thinking about space defense and space control, they need rapid response. So we’ll move from one part of GEO to another very rapidly. And we can host payloads, like what Anduril makes, such as electronic warfare payloads, and then potentially doing proximity ops missions. So Mira wasn’t necessarily designed out of the gate for that, but what we found out after we flew it successfully was, the Space Force said, ‘Hey, we know what that thing’s for.'”

An in-space propulsion company just raised a staggering amount of money Read More »

some-parts-of-trump’s-proposed-budget-for-nasa-are-literally-draconian

Some parts of Trump’s proposed budget for NASA are literally draconian

darpa, DRACO, NASA, nasa budget, nuclear thermal propulsion, Science, Space, White House / /

“That’s exactly the kind of thing that NASA should be concentrating its resources on.”

Artist’s illustration of the DRACO nuclear rocket engine in space. Credit: Lockheed Martin

New details of the Trump administration’s plans for NASA, released Friday, revealed the White House’s desire to end the development of an experimental nuclear thermal rocket engine that could have shown a new way of exploring the Solar System.

Trump’s NASA budget request is rife with spending cuts. Overall, the White House proposes reducing NASA’s budget by about 24 percent, from $24.8 billion this year to $18.8 billion in fiscal year 2026. In previous stories, Ars has covered many of the programs impacted by the proposed cuts, which would cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft and terminate numerous robotic science missions, including the Mars Sample Return, probes to Venus, and future space telescopes.

Instead, the leftover funding for NASA’s human exploration program would go toward supporting commercial projects to land on the Moon and Mars.

NASA’s initiatives to pioneer next-generation space technologies are also hit hard in the White House’s budget proposal. If the Trump administration gets its way, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate, or STMD, will see its budget cut nearly in half, from $1.1 billion to $568 million.

Trump’s budget request isn’t final. Both Republican-controlled houses of Congress will write their own versions of the NASA budget, which must be reconciled before going to the White House for President Trump’s signature.

“The budget reduces Space Technology by approximately half, including eliminating failing space propulsion projects,” the White House wrote in an initial overview of the NASA budget request released May 2. “The reductions also scale back or eliminate technology projects that are not needed by NASA or are better suited to private sector research and development.”

Breathing fire

Last week, the White House and NASA put a finer point on these “failing space propulsion projects.”

“This budget provides no funding for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion and Nuclear Electric Propulsion projects,” officials wrote in a technical supplement released Friday detailing Trump’s NASA budget proposal. “These efforts are costly investments, would take many years to develop, and have not been identified as the propulsion mode for deep space missions. The nuclear propulsion projects are terminated to achieve cost savings and because there are other nearer-term propulsion alternatives for Mars transit.”

Foremost among these cuts, the White House proposes to end NASA’s participation in the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) project. NASA said this proposal “reflects the decision by our partner to cancel” the DRACO mission, which would have demonstrated a nuclear thermal rocket engine in space for the first time.

NASA’s partner on the DRACO mission was the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon’s research and development arm. A DARPA spokesperson confirmed the agency was closing out the project.

“DARPA has completed the agency’s involvement in the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Orbit (DRACO) program and is transitioning its knowledge to our DRACO mission partner, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and to other potential DOD programs,” the spokesperson said in a response to written questions.

A nuclear rocket engine, which was to be part of NASA’s aborted NERVA program, is tested at Jackass Flats, Nevada, in 1967. Credit: Corbis via Getty Images)

Less than two years ago, NASA and DARPA announced plans to move forward with the roughly $500 million DRACO project, targeting a launch into Earth orbit aboard a traditional chemical rocket in 2027. “With the help of this new technology, astronauts could journey to and from deep space faster than ever, a major capability to prepare for crewed missions to Mars,” former NASA administrator Bill Nelson said at the time.

The DRACO mission would have consisted of several elements, including a nuclear reactor to rapidly heat up super-cold liquid hydrogen fuel stored in an insulated tank onboard the spacecraft. Temperatures inside the engine would reach nearly 5,000° Fahrenheit, boiling the hydrogen and driving the resulting gas through a nozzle, generating thrust. From the outside, the spacecraft’s design looks a lot like the upper stage of a traditional rocket. However, theoretically, a nuclear thermal rocket engine like DRACO’s would offer twice the efficiency of the highest-performing conventional rocket engines. That translates to significantly less fuel that a mission to Mars would have to carry across the Solar System.

Essentially, a nuclear thermal rocket engine combines the high-thrust capability of a chemical engine with some of the fuel efficiency benefits of low-thrust solar-electric engines. With DRACO, engineers sought hard data to verify their understanding of nuclear propulsion and wanted to make sure the nuclear engine’s challenging design actually worked. DRACO would have used high-assay low-enriched uranium to power its nuclear reactor.

Nuclear electric propulsion uses an onboard nuclear reactor to power plasma thrusters that create thrust by accelerating an ionized gas, like xenon, through a magnetic field. Nuclear electric propulsion would provide another leap in engine efficiency beyond the capabilities of a system like DRACO and may ultimately offer the most attractive option for enduring deep space transportation.

NASA led the development of DRACO’s nuclear rocket engine, while DARPA was responsible for the overall spacecraft design, operations, and the thorny problem of securing regulatory approval to launch a nuclear reactor into orbit. The reactor on DRACO would have launched in “cold” mode before activating in space, reducing the risk to people on the ground in the event of a launch accident. The Space Force agreed to pay for DRACO’s launch on a United Launch Alliance Vulcan rocket.

DARPA and NASA selected Lockheed Martin as the lead contractor for the DRACO spacecraft in 2023. BWX Technologies, a leader in the US nuclear industry, won the contract to develop the mission’s reactor.

“We received the notice from DARPA that it ended the DRACO program,” a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said. “While we’re disappointed with the decision, it doesn’t change our vision of how nuclear power influences how we will explore and operate in the vastness of space.”

Mired in the lab

More than 60 years have passed since a US-built nuclear reactor launched into orbit. Aviation Week reported in January that one problem facing DRACO engineers involved questions about how to safely test the nuclear thermal engine on the ground while adhering to nuclear safety protocols.

“We’re bringing two things together—space mission assurance and nuclear safety—and there’s a fair amount of complexity,” said Matthew Sambora, a DRACO program manager at DARPA, in an interview with Aviation Week. At the time, DARPA and NASA had already given up on a 2027 launch to concentrate on developing a prototype engine using helium as a propellant before moving on to an operational engine with more energetic liquid hydrogen fuel, Aviation Week reported.

Greg Meholic, an engineer at the Aerospace Corporation, highlighted the shortfall in ground testing capability in a presentation last year. Nuclear thermal propulsion testing “requires that engine exhaust be scrubbed of radiologics before being released,” he wrote. This requirement “could result in substantially large, prohibitively expensive facilities that take years to build and qualify.”

These safety protocols weren’t as stringent when NASA and the Air Force first pursued nuclear propulsion in the 1960s. Now, the first serious 21st-century effort to fly a nuclear rocket engine in space is grinding to a halt.

“Given that our near-term human exploration and science needs do not require nuclear propulsion, current demonstration projects will end,” wrote Janet Petro, NASA’s acting administrator, in a letter accompanying the Trump administration’s budget release last week.

This figure illustrates the major elements of a typical nuclear thermal rocket engine. Credit: NASA/Glenn Research Center

NASA’s 2024 budget allocated $117 million for nuclear propulsion work, an increase from $91 million the previous year. Congress added more funding for NASA’s nuclear propulsion programs over the Biden administration’s proposed budget in recent years, signaling support on Capitol Hill that may save at least some nuclear propulsion initiatives next year.

It’s true that nuclear propulsion isn’t required for any NASA missions currently on the books. Today’s rockets are good at hurling cargo and people off planet Earth, but once a spacecraft arrives in orbit, there are several ways to propel it toward more distant destinations.

NASA’s existing architecture for sending astronauts to the Moon uses the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, both of which are proposed for cancellation and look a lot like the vehicles NASA used to fly astronauts to the Moon more than 50 years ago. SpaceX’s reusable Starship, designed with an eye toward settling Mars, uses conventional chemical propulsion, with methane and liquid oxygen propellants that SpaceX one day hopes to generate on the surface of the Red Planet.

So NASA, SpaceX, and other companies don’t need nuclear propulsion to beat China back to the Moon or put the first human footprints on Mars. But there’s a broad consensus that in the long run, nuclear rockets offer a better way of moving around the Solar System.

The military’s motive for funding nuclear thermal propulsion was its potential for becoming a more efficient means of maneuvering around the Earth. Many of the military’s most important spacecraft are limited by fuel, and the Space Force is investigating orbital refueling and novel propulsion methods to extend the lifespan of satellites.

NASA’s nuclear power program is not finished. The Trump administration’s budget proposal calls for continued funding for the agency’s fission surface power program, with the goal of fielding a nuclear reactor that could power a base on the surface of the Moon or Mars. Lockheed and BWXT, the contractors involved in the DRACO mission, are part of the fission surface power program.

There is some funding in the White House’s budget request for tech demos using other methods of in-space propulsion. NASA would continue funding experiments in long-term storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants like liquid methane, liquid hydrogen, and liquid oxygen. These joint projects between NASA and industry could pave the way for orbital refueling and orbiting propellant depots, aligning with the direction of companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and United Launch Alliance.

But many scientists and engineers believe nuclear propulsion offers the only realistic path for a sustainable campaign ferrying people between the Earth and Mars. A report commissioned by NASA and the National Academies concluded in 2021 that an aggressive tech-development program could advance nuclear thermal propulsion enough for a human expedition to Mars in 2039. The prospects for nuclear electric propulsion were murkier.

This would have required NASA to substantially increase its budget for nuclear propulsion immediately, likely by an order of magnitude beyond the agency’s baseline funding level, or to an amount exceeding $1 billion per year, said Bobby Braun, co-chair of the National Academies report, in a 2021 interview with Ars. That didn’t happen.

Going nuclear

The interplanetary transportation architectures envisioned by NASA and SpaceX will, at least initially, primarily use chemical propulsion for the cruise between Earth and Mars.

Kurt Polzin, chief engineer of NASA’s space nuclear propulsion projects, said significant technical hurdles stand in the way of any propulsion system selected to power heavy cargo and humans to Mars.

“Anybody who says that they’ve solved the problem, you don’t know that because you don’t have enough data,” Polzin said last week at the Humans to the Moon and Mars Summit in Washington.

“We know that to do a Mars mission with a Starship, you need lots of refuelings at Earth, you need lots of refuelings at Mars, which you have to send in advance,” Polzin said. “You either need to send that propellant in advance or send a bunch of material and hardware to the surface to be set up and robotically make your propellant in situ while you’re there.”

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is betting on chemical propulsion for round-trip flights to Mars with its Starship rocket. This will require assembly of propellant-generation plants on the Martian surface. Credit: SpaceX

Last week, SpaceX founder Elon Musk outlined how the company plans to land its first Starships on Mars. His roadmap includes more than 100 cargo flights to deliver equipment to produce methane and liquid oxygen propellants on the surface of Mars. This is necessary for any Starship to launch off the Red Planet and return to Earth.

“You can start to see that this starts to become a Rube Goldberg way to do Mars,” Polzin said. “Will I say it can’t work? No, but will I say that it’s really, really difficult and challenging. Are there a lot of miracles to make it work? Absolutely. So the notion that SpaceX has solved Mars or is going to do Mars with Starship, I would challenge that on its face. I don’t think the analysis and the data bear that out.”

Engineers know how methane-fueled rocket engines perform in space. Scientists have created liquid oxygen and liquid methane since the late 1800s. Scaling up a propellant plant on Mars to produce thousands of tons of cryogenic liquids is another matter. In the long run, this might be a suitable solution for Musk’s vision of creating a city on Mars, but it comes with immense startup costs and risks. Still, nuclear propulsion is an entirely untested technology as well.

“The thing with nuclear is there are challenges to making it work, too,” Polzin said. “However, all of my challenges get solved here at Earth and in low-Earth orbit before I leave. Nuclear is nice. It has a higher specific impulse, especially when we’re talking about nuclear thermal propulsion. It has high thrust, which means it will get our astronauts there and back quickly, but I can carry all the fuel I need to get back with me, so I don’t need to do any complicated refueling at Mars. I can return without having to make propellant or send any pre-positioned propellant to get back.”

The tug of war over nuclear propulsion is nothing new. The Air Force started a program to develop reactors for nuclear thermal rockets at the height of the Cold War. NASA took over the Air Force’s role a few years later, and the project proceeded into the next phase, called the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA). President Richard Nixon ultimately canceled the NERVA project in 1973 after the government had spent $1.4 billion on it, equivalent to about $10 billion in today’s dollars. Despite nearly two decades of work, NERVA never flew in space.

Doing the hard things

The Pentagon and NASA studied several more nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion initiatives before DRACO. Today, there’s a nascent commercial business case for compact nuclear reactors beyond just the government. But there’s scant commercial interest in mounting a full-scale nuclear propulsion demonstration solely with private funding.

Fred Kennedy, co-founder and CEO of a space nuclear power company called Dark Fission, said most venture capital investors lack the appetite to wait for financial returns in nuclear propulsion that they may see in 15 or 20 years.

“It’s a truism: Space is hard,” said Kennedy, a former DARPA program manager. “Nuclear turns out to be hard for reasons we can all understand. So space-nuclear is hard-squared, folks. As a result, you give this to your average associate at a VC firm and they get scared quick. They see the moles all over your face, and they run away screaming.”

But commercial launch costs are coming down. With sustained government investment and streamlined regulations, “this is the best chance we’ve had in a long time” to get a nuclear propulsion system into space, Kennedy said.

Technicians prepare a nozzle for a prototype nuclear thermal rocket engine in 1964. Credit: NASA

“I think, right now, we’re in this transitional period where companies like mine are going have to rely on some government largesse, as well as hopefully both commercial partnerships and honest private investment,” Kennedy said. “Three years ago, I would have told you I thought I could have done the whole thing with private investment, but three years have turned my hair white.”

Those who share Kennedy’s view thought they were getting an ally in the Trump administration. Jared Isaacman, the billionaire commercial astronaut Trump nominated to become the next NASA administrator, promised to prioritize nuclear propulsion in his tenure as head of the nation’s space agency.

During his Senate confirmation hearing in April, Isaacman said NASA should turn over management of heavy-lift rockets, human-rated spacecraft, and other projects to commercial industry. This change, he said, would allow NASA to focus on the “near-impossible challenges that no company, organization, or agency anywhere in the world would be able to undertake.”

The example Isaacman gave in his confirmation hearing was nuclear propulsion. “That’s something that no company would ever embark upon,” he told lawmakers. “There is no obvious economic return. There are regulatory challenges. That’s exactly the kind of thing that NASA should be concentrating its resources on.”

But the White House suddenly announced on Saturday that it was withdrawing Isaacman’s nomination days before the Senate was expected to confirm him for the NASA post. While there’s no indication that Trump’s withdrawal of Isaacman had anything to do with any specific part of the White House’s funding plan, his removal leaves NASA without an advocate for nuclear propulsion and a number of other projects falling under the White House’s budget ax.

Photo of Stephen Clark

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.

Some parts of Trump’s proposed budget for NASA are literally draconian Read More »

tuesday-telescope:-a-time-lapse-from-orbit-reveals-treasures-below

Tuesday Telescope: A time-lapse from orbit reveals treasures below

daily telescope, Space, tuesday telescope / /

Welcome to the Tuesday Telescope. There is a little too much darkness in this world and not enough light—a little too much pseudoscience and not enough science. We’ll let other publications offer you a daily horoscope. At Ars Technica, we’ll take a different route, finding inspiration from very real images of a universe that is filled with stars and wonder.

I did not expect to feature NASA astronaut Nichole Ayers in the Tuesday Telescope so soon, but a recent photo she shared is just sublime. (In case you missed it, we wrote about her photo of lightning from space about a month ago.)

This week Ayers has a time-lapse sequence she captured from the Cupola as the International Space Station soared near Central and South America.

“Soooooo much going on in this picture,” Ayers wrote on the social media site X. “You can see Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama, with South America off in the distance.”

The most distinct feature is a lightning strike near Panama City. This illuminates the clouds below. Above the strike is a reddish phenomenon known as a sprite, which sometimes occurs in the atmosphere between 50 and 90 km above a lightning strike near the surface of the planet. This appears to be a “jellyfish” sprite. It is rendered beautifully.

But wait, there’s more! The lightning strike is so bright that its reflection can be seen in the space station’s structure, at the top of the image. Additionally the atmosphere’s airglow can be clearly seen in the orange line just above the atmosphere.

All in all, it’s a wonderful photo, and I can’t wait to see what other treasures Ayers sends down from on high.

Source: Nichole Ayers/NASA

Do you want to submit a photo for the Daily Telescope? Reach out and say hello.

Tuesday Telescope: A time-lapse from orbit reveals treasures below Read More »

trump-pulls-isaacman-nomination-for-space.-source:-“nasa-is-f***ed”

Trump pulls Isaacman nomination for space. Source: “NASA is f***ed”

isaacman, NASA, Space, Trump / /

Musk was a key factor behind Isaacman’s nomination as NASA administrator, and with his backing, Isaacman was able to skip some of the party purity tests that have been applied to other Trump administration nominees. One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats. He also indicated opposition to some of the White House’s proposed cuts to NASA’s science budget.

Musk’s role in the government was highly controversial, winning him enemies both among opponents of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda as well as inside the administration. One source told Ars that, with Musk’s exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman’s nomination.

The loss of Isaacman is almost certainly a blow to NASA, which faces substantial budget cuts. The Trump Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2026, released Friday, seeks $18.8 billion for the agency next year—a 24 percent cut from the agency’s budget of $24.8 billion for FY 2025.

Going out of business?

Isaacman is generally well-liked in the space community and is known to care deeply about space exploration. Officials within the space agency—and the larger space community—hoped that having him as NASA’s leader would help the agency restore some of these cuts.

Now? “NASA is f—ed,” one current leader in the agency told Ars on Saturday.

“NASA’s budget request is just a going-out-of-business mode without Jared there to innovate,” a former senior NASA leader said.

The Trump administration did not immediately name a new nominee, but two people told Ars that former US Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Kwast may be near the top of the list. Now retired, Kwast has a distinguished record in the Air Force and is politically loyal to Trump and MAGA.

However, his background seems to be far less oriented toward NASA’s civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield—decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration.

Trump pulls Isaacman nomination for space. Source: “NASA is f***ed” Read More »

testing-a-robot-that-could-drill-into-europa-and-enceladus

Testing a robot that could drill into Europa and Enceladus

astronomy, Enceladus, Europa, exobiology, icy moon, planetary science, Science, Space / /

We don’t currently have a mission to put it on, but NASA is making sure it’s ready.

Geysers on Saturn’s moon Enceladus Credit: NASA

Europa and Enceladus are two ocean moons that scientists have concluded have liquid water oceans underneath their outer icy shells. The Europa Clipper mission should reach Europa around April of 2030. If it collects data hinting at the moon’s potential habitability, robotic lander missions could be the only way to confirm if there’s really life in there or not.

To make these lander missions happen, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory team has been working on a robot that could handle the search for life and already tested it on the Matanuska Glacier in Alaska. “At this point this is a pretty mature concept,” says Kevin Hand, a planetary scientist at JPL who led this effort.

Into the unknown

There are only a few things we know for sure about conditions on the surface of Europa, and nearly all of them don’t bode well for lander missions. First, Europa is exposed to very harsh radiation, which is a problem for electronics. The window of visibility—when a potential robotic lander could contact Earth—lasts less than half of the 85 hours it takes for the moon to complete its day-night cycle due to the Europa-Jupiter orbit. So, for more than half the mission, the robot would need to fend for itself, with no human ground teams to get it out of trouble. The lander would also need to run on non-rechargeable batteries, because the vast distance to the Sun would make solar panels prohibitively massive.

And that’s just the beginning. Unlike on Mars, we don’t have any permanent orbiters around Europa that could provide a communication infrastructure, and we don’t have high-resolution imagery of the surface, which would make the landing particularly tricky. “We don’t know what Europa’s surface looks like at the centimeter to meter scale. Even with the Europa Clipper imagery, the highest resolution will be about half a meter per pixel across a few select regions,” Hand explains.

Because Europa has an extremely thin atmosphere that doesn’t provide any insulation, the temperatures on top of its ice shell are estimated to vary between minus-160° Celsius during the daytime maximum and minus-220° C during the night, which means the ice the lander would be there to sample is most likely hard as concrete. Hand’s team, building their robot, had to figure out a design that could deal with all these issues.

The work on the robotic system for the Europa lander mission began more than 10 years ago. Back then, the 2013–2022 decadal strategy for planetary science cited the Europa Clipper as the second-highest priority large-scale planetary mission, so a lander seemed like a natural follow-up.

Autonomy and ice drilling

The robot developed by Hand’s team has legs that enable it to stabilize itself on various types of surfaces, from rock-hard ice to loose, soft snow. To orient itself in the environment, it uses a stereoscopic camera with an LED light source for illumination hooked to computer-vision algorithms—a system similar to the one currently used by the Perseverance rover on Mars. “Stereoscopic cameras can triangulate points in an image and build a digital surface topography model,” explains Joseph Bowkett, a JPL researcher and engineer who worked on the robot’s design.

The team built an entirely new robotic arm with seven degrees of freedom. Force torque sensors installed in most of its joints act a bit like a nervous system, informing the robot when key components sustain excessive loads to prevent it from damaging the arm or the drill. “As we press down on the surface [and] conduct drilling and sampling, we can measure the forces and react accordingly,” Bowkett says. The finishing touch was the ICEPICK, a drilling and sampling tool the robot uses to excavate samples from the ice up to 20 centimeters deep.

Because of long periods the lander would need operate without any human supervision, the team also gave it a wide range of autonomous systems, which operate at two different levels. High-level autonomy is responsible for scheduling and prioritizing tasks within a limited energy budget. The robot can drill into a sampling site, analyze samples with onboard instruments, and decide whether it makes sense to keep drilling at the same spot or choose a different sampling site. The high-level system is also tasked with choosing the most important results for downlink back to Earth.

Low-level autonomy breaks all these high-level tasks down into step-by-step decisions on how to operate the drill and how to move the arm in the safest and most energy-efficient way.

The robot was tested in simulation software first, then indoors at JPL’s facilities, and finally at the Matanuska Glacier in Alaska, where it was lowered from a helicopter that acted as a proxy for a landing vehicle. It was tested at three different sites, ranked from the easiest to the most challenging. It completed all the baseline activities as well as all of the extras. The latter included a task like drilling 27 centimeters deep into ice at the most difficult site, where it was awkwardly positioned on an eight-to-12-degree slope. The robot passed all the tests with flying colors.

And then it got shelved.

Switching the ocean worlds

Hand’s team put their Europa landing robot through the Alaskan field test campaign between July and August 2022. But when the new decadal strategy for planetary science came out in 2023, it turned out that the Europa lander was not among the missions selected. The National Academies committee responsible for formulating these decadal strategies did not recommend giving it a go, mainly because they believed harsh radiation in the Jovian system would make detecting biosignatures “challenging” for a lander.

An Enceladus lander, on the other hand, remained firmly on the table. “I was also on the team developing EELS, a robot intended for a potential Enceladus mission, so thankfully I can speak about both. The radiation challenges are indeed far greater for Europa,” Bowkett says.

Another argument for changing our go-to ocean world is that water plumes containing salts along with carbon- and nitrogen-bearing molecules have already been observed on Enceladus, which means there is a slight chance biosignatures could be detected by a flyby mission. The surface of Enceladus, according to the decadal strategy document, should be capable of preserving biogenic evidence for a long time and seems more conducive to a lander mission. “Luckily, many of the lessons on how to conduct autonomous sampling on Europa, we believe, will transfer to Enceladus, with the benefit of a less damaging radiation environment,” Bowkett told Ars.

The dream of a Europa landing is not completely dead, though. “I would love to get into the Europa’s ocean with a submersible and further down to the seafloor. I would love for that to happen,” Hand says. “But technologically it’s quite a big leap, and you always have to balance your dream missions with the number of technological miracles that need to be solved to make these missions possible.”

Science Robotics, 2025.  DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.adi5582

Photo of Jacek Krywko

Jacek Krywko is a freelance science and technology writer who covers space exploration, artificial intelligence research, computer science, and all sorts of engineering wizardry.

Testing a robot that could drill into Europa and Enceladus Read More »

blue-origin-boss:-government-should-forget-launch-and-focus-on-“exotic”-missions

Blue Origin boss: Government should forget launch and focus on “exotic” missions

artemis, blue origin, Commercial space, dave limp, Jeff Bezos, launch, Mars, moon, Science, Space / /

“There’s not yet a commercial reason only to go to the Moon with humans.”

In this long exposure photograph, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket pierces a cloud deck over Florida’s Space Coast on its inaugural flight January 16. Credit: Blue Origin

Eighteen months after leaving his job as a vice president at Amazon to take over as Blue Origin’s chief executive, Dave Limp has some thoughts on how commercial companies and government agencies like NASA should explore the Solar System together.

Limp had no background in the space industry before taking the helm of Jeff Bezos’ space company in December 2023. He started his career as a computer scientist at Apple, took a stint at a venture capital firm, and joined Amazon in 2010, where he managed development of consumer devices like Alexa, Kindle, and the Fire TV.

“I had no thoughts of ever running a space company,” Limp said Thursday at a space conference in Washington, DC. “I’ve done consumer electronics my whole life. Started at Apple and did a bunch of other things, and so when I decided to retire from Amazon, I was looking for something that I could give back a little bit, be a little bit more philanthropic in the sort of second half of my career. I didn’t want to stop working, just wanted to do something different. And about that same time, Jeff was looking for a CEO.”

While he’s still a relative newcomer to the space business, Limp’s views align with those of many policy wonks and industry leaders who have the ears of senior officials in the Trump administration, including Jared Isaacman, President Trump’s nominee to become the next NASA administrator. Limp’s long tenure at Amazon and his selection as Blue Origin’s new CEO demonstrate that he also has the trust of Bezos, who was dissatisfied with his company’s slow progress in spaceflight.

“I think Jeff convinced me, and he’s very persuasive, that Blue didn’t need another rocket scientist,” Limp said. “We have thousands of the world’s best rocket scientists. What we needed was a little bit more decisiveness, a little bit more ability to think about: How do we manufacture at scale? And those are things I’ve done in the past, and so I’ve never looked back.”

David Limp, CEO of Blue Origin, speaks during the 2025 Humans to the Moon and Mars Summit at George Washington University in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2025. Credit: Alex Wroblewski / AFP via Getty Images

Leave it to us

In remarks Thursday at the Humans to the Moon & Mars Summit, Limp advocated for commercial companies, like his own, taking a larger role in developing the transportation and infrastructure to meet lofty national objectives established by government leaders.

In some ways, NASA has long been moving in this direction, beginning with initiatives ceding most launch services to private industry in the 1990s. More recently, NASA has turned to commercial companies for crew and cargo deliveries to the International Space Station and cargo and human-rated Moon landers.

However, NASA, with the backing of key congressional leaders, has held an iron grip on having its own heavy-lift launcher and crew capsule to ferry astronauts between Earth and destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. Now, these vehicles—the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft—may be canceled if Congress agrees with Trump’s proposed NASA budget.

Commercial rockets close to matching or exceeding the Space Launch System’s lift capability are available for purchase or likely will be soon. These include SpaceX’s Starship mega-rocket and Blue Origin’s New Glenn launcher. Both are already key elements of NASA’s Artemis program, which aims to land US astronauts on the Moon as a stepping stone toward human expeditions to Mars.

But NASA still plans to use its government-owned Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft to transport astronauts out to the Moon, where they will rendezvous with a Starship or Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander to fly to and from the lunar surface.

SLS and Orion are expensive vehicles, costing more than $4 billion per launch for the initial set of four Artemis missions, according to a report by NASA’s inspector general. While commercial companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman build elements of SLS and Orion, NASA acts as the prime integrator. The agency signed cost-plus contracts with the companies building SLS and Orion, meaning the government is on the hook for cost overruns. And there have been many.

Artist’s concept of Blue Ring, a propulsive spacecraft platform Blue Origin says it is developing to carry payloads to different orbits, and possibly all the way to Mars, at lower costs than feasible today. Credit: Blue Origin

NASA’s robotic science probes are also getting more expensive, even when accounting for inflation. Given the way NASA procures science probes, it would cost NASA more today to send an orbiter to Mars than it did for a similarly sized spacecraft a quarter-century ago.

This has to change in order for NASA and private companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX to make their ambitions a reality, Limp said Thursday.

“I think commercial folks can worry about the infrastructure,” he said. “We can do the launch. We can build the satellite buses that can get you to Mars much more frequently, that don’t cost billions of dollars. We can take a zero, and over time, maybe two zeros off of that. And if the governments around the world leave that to the commercial side, then there are a lot more resources that are freed up for the science side, for the national prestige side, and those types of things.”

The bottom line

Limp followed these comments with a dose of realism you don’t often hear from space industry executives. While there’s a growing list of commercially viable markets in space (things like Starlink and satellite servicing wouldn’t have been money-makers 20 years ago), the market for human spaceflight still requires some level of government commitment.

“I think the thing about bringing commercial aspects to exploration, to science, to the Moon, to Mars, is that we have to see a business prospect for it,” Limp said. “We have to turn it into a business, and that benefits American taxpayers because we will use that capital as efficiently as we can to get to the Moon, to get to Mars in a safe way, but in a way that’s the most efficient.

“We’re committed to that, no matter what the architecture looks like, but it does take the US government and international governments to have the motivation to do it,” he continued. “There’s not yet a commercial reason only to go to the Moon with humans. There are lots of commercial reasons to put robotics on the Moon and other types of things. So, we do need to have conviction that the Moon is important and Mars is important as well.”

Trump and Musk, an ally and advisor to the president, rekindled the question of Moon or Mars in a series of remarks during the early weeks of the new Trump administration. The Artemis Moon program began during the first Trump administration, with the goal of returning astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972. NASA would establish a sustained presence at the Moon, using our nearest planetary body as a proving ground for the next destination for humans in Solar System exploration: Mars.

Space industry rivals Jeff Bezos, second from left, and Elon Musk, second from right, inside the US Capitol for President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

SpaceX’s Starship, while capable of one day landing on the Moon, was designed for long-duration cruises to Mars. Blue Origin’s Blue Moon is tailored for lunar landings.

“As an American, I don’t want another Sputnik moment,” Limp said. “From my standpoint, getting boots on the Moon and setting the groundwork for permanence on the Moon is of national importance and urgency. Rest assured, Blue will do everything in its power to try to make that happen, but in a cost-effective way.”

NASA, please don’t leave us

Since retaking office in January, Trump has mentioned human missions to Mars multiple times, but not the Moon. Isaacman, who may be confirmed as NASA administrator by the Senate as soon as next week, told lawmakers in April that the agency should pursue human missions to the Moon and Mars simultaneously. The details of how that might work haven’t been released but could come out in the White House’s detailed budget proposal for fiscal-year 2026.

A blueprint of Trump’s spending proposal released May 2 includes a 25 percent cut to NASA’s overall budget, but the plan would provide additional money for human space exploration at the Moon and Mars. “The budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions,” the White House budget office wrote.

This part of the budget request is not controversial for industry leaders like Limp. On the other hand, the budget blueprint proposes slashing NASA’s space science budget by nearly $2.3 billion, Earth science by almost $1.2 billion, and space technology by $531 million.

While Limp didn’t directly address these budget proposals, these parts of NASA are largely focused on research projects that lack a commercial business case. Who else but a government space agency, or perhaps an especially generous type of philanthropic multi-billionaire, would pay to send a probe to study Jupiter’s icy moon Europa? Or a robot to zip by Pluto? Or how about a mission like Landsat, which documents everything from water resources to farms and urban sprawl and makes its data freely available to anyone with an Internet connection?

Most experts agree there are better ways to do these things. Reusable rockets, mass-produced satellite platforms, and improved contracting practices can bring down the costs of these missions. Bezos’ long-term goal for Blue Origin, which is to move all polluting factories off the Earth and into space, will be easier to achieve with government support, not just funding, Limp said.

“Getting up there, building factories on the Moon is a great step, and the government can really help with research dollars around that,” he said. “But it still does need the labs. The science missions need the JPLs [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] of the world. To make the human experience right, we need the Johnson Space Centers of the world to be able to kind of use that gold mine of institutional knowledge.

“I would say, and it might be a little provocative, let’s have those smart brains look on the forward-thinking types of things, the really edge of science, planning the really exotic missions, figuring out how to get to planetary bodies we haven’t gotten to before, and staying there,” Limp said.

Mark it down

For the first decade after Bezos founded Blue Origin in 2000, the company operated under the radar and seemed to move at a glacial pace. It launched its first small rocket in 2006 to an altitude of less than 300 feet and reached space with the suborbital New Shepard booster in 2015. Blue Origin finally reached orbit in January of this year on the debut test flight of its heavy-lift New Glenn rocket. Meanwhile, Blue Origin inked a deal with United Launch Alliance to supply a version of its New Glenn main engine to power that company’s Vulcan rocket.

Blue Origin’s Blue Moon MK1 lander, seen in the center, is taller than NASA’s Apollo lunar lander, currently the largest spacecraft to have landed on the Moon. Blue Moon MK2 is even larger, but all three landers are dwarfed in size by SpaceX’s Starship, NASA’s other Artemis lunar lander. Credit: Blue Origin

The next big mission for Blue Origin will be the first flight of its Blue Moon lander. The first version of Blue Moon, called MK1, will launch on a New Glenn rocket later this year and attempt to become the largest spacecraft to ever land on the Moon. This demonstration, without anyone onboard, is fully funded by Blue Origin, Limp said.

A future human-rated version, called MK2, is under development with the assistance of NASA. It will be larger and will require refueling to reach the lunar surface. Blue Moon MK1 can make a landing on one tank.

These are tangible achievements that would be the envy of any space industry startup not named SpaceX. But Musk’s rocket company left Blue Origin in the dust as it broke launch industry records repeatedly and began delivering NASA astronauts to the International Space Station in 2020. My colleague, Eric Berger, wrote a story in January describing Blue Origin’s culture. For much of its existence, one former employee said, Blue Origin had “zero incentive” to operate like SpaceX.

To ensure he would be in lock-step with his boss, Limp felt he had to ask a question that was on the minds of many industry insiders. He got the answer he wanted.

“The only question I really asked Jeff when I was talking about taking this job was, ‘What do you want Blue to be? Is it a hobby, or is it a business?'” Limp said. “And he had the right answer, which is, it’s a business, because I don’t know how to run a hobby, and I don’t think it’s sustainable.”

Photo of Stephen Clark

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.

Blue Origin boss: Government should forget launch and focus on “exotic” missions Read More »

rocket-report:-northrop-backs-firefly-and-names-its-rocket;-xodiac-will-fly-no-more

Rocket Report: Northrop backs Firefly and names its rocket; Xodiac will fly no more

rocket report, Space / /

“This is a design change that I really had to push the team very hard to do.”

An artist’s rendering of the Eclipse rocket on the launch pad at Wallops. Credit: Northrop Grumman

Welcome to Edition 7.46 of the Rocket Report! As I write this, the date is May 29. From a meteorological standpoint, “spring” ends in fewer than three days. Summer lasts from June 1 through August 31. Consider this a public service announcement for launch companies targeting “spring” and “summer” launches for various missions.

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

Xodiac rocket makes its final flight. Originally built by Masten Space Systems, the suborbital Xodiac rocket had flown 175 successful missions before a flight from Mojave, California, on Wednesday. But now, it will fly no more. “While the vehicle remained within its planned flight envelope, it detected an anomalous condition and commanded a flight termination,” said Astrobotic, which acquired Masten a couple of years ago. “This resulted in a rapid descent and caused a loss of the vehicle upon impact with its launch pad.”

Now entering the Xogdor waiting room … There were no injuries or significant damage to the company’s infrastructure in Mojave. The vehicle is essentially a hopper and has been used in recent years by various customers, including companies building commercial lunar landers, to test their hazard-detection systems. Astrobotic has been working on a larger version of Xodiac, which it is calling Xogdor.

Chinese firm tests Grasshopper-like rocket. Chinese private rocket firm Space Epoch said Thursday it had successfully run a flight recovery test, Reuters reports. Beijing-based Space Epoch, or SEPOCH, said its Yuanxingzhe-1 verification rocket was launched at 4: 40 am from a sea-based platform off the waters of the eastern province of Shandong. The rocket soared upward, its engines briefly shutting down after the peak of its trajectory, then reigniting as it began its vertical descent to enter the Yellow Sea in a circle of fire, a video posted on Space Epoch’s WeChat account showed.

Chasing the Falcon 9 … The flight lasted 125 seconds, reaching a height of about 2.5 km (1.6 miles), the company said. Last year, another Chinese launch company, LandSpace, completed a 10-km (6.2-mile) VTVL test, marking China’s first in-flight engine reignition in descent. Both companies are pushing to make debut tests of their reusable rockets later this year.

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

Sign Me Up!

Florida company aims to acquire F-4 Phantoms for launch. Starfighters International, a company best known for doing air shows, is now seeking to move into air launch. Based at Kennedy Space Center, the company is in the process of acquiring a dozen F-4 Phantoms, a Cold War-era fighter jet, TWZ reports. Starfighters International is seeking to acquire the F-4 aircraft from South Korea.

Press F-4 to doubt? … Based upon the information in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company is considering both a suborbital and orbital launch capability for small satellites, which would fly to space on a small rocket deployed from the F-4 Phantom. In my experience, air-based launch systems always seem like a better idea on paper than in reality. Perhaps there is some potential for hypersonics here, but I would be shocked to ever see a satellite launched into orbit from a fighter jet. (submitted by Biokleen)

Rocket Lab acquires Geost. Rocket Lab is expanding deeper into the defense sector with the acquisition of Geost, a supplier of electro-optical and infrared sensor payloads used in US military satellites, Space News reports. In a deal announced Tuesday, Rocket Lab will acquire Geost from the private equity firm ATL Partners for $125 million in cash and $150 million in stock, with an additional $50 million in potential cash payments tied to revenue targets in 2026 and 2027.

Seeking mil money … The acquisition gives Rocket Lab access to satellite sensor technology used by the US Department of Defense for missile-warning systems and space surveillance—capabilities that could help it win lucrative Pentagon contracts. “The acquisition of Geost will bring on board critical technology and payloads that are relied upon by the Department of Defense,” said Rocket Lab’s chief executive, Peter Beck. Rocket Lab has been seeking to expand its military contracts in recent years, and this move is consistent with that.

Northrop names rocket, invests in Firefly. Northrop Grumman announced Thursday that it is investing $50 million into Firefly Aerospace to further development of a medium-lift rocket. The company also revealed that the rocket will be named “Eclipse.” The rocket will be capable of launching up to 16,300 kg of cargo to low-Earth orbit or 3,200 kg of cargo to geosynchronous transfer orbit, and initially it will likely be used for Cygnus cargo missions to the International Space Station.

A match made in heaven? … Eclipse will use the same first stage Firefly is developing for the Northrop Grumman Antares 330 rocket. Both launch vehicles will use seven of Firefly’s Miranda engines. The new rocket is expected to make its debut no earlier than 2026 (and, if history is any guide, probably later). “Eclipse gives customers the right balance of payload capacity and affordability,” Northrop Vice President Wendy Williams said in a statement. “Our partnership with Firefly builds on our capacity to provide crucial space-based communication, observation, and exploration for civil and national security customers.”

China launches asteroid mission. A Chinese spacecraft built to collect specimens from an unexplored asteroid and return them to Earth launched Wednesday from a military-run spaceport in the country’s mountainous interior, Ars reports. The liftoff aboard a Long March 3B rocket from the Xichang launch base kicked off the second mission in a series of Chinese probes to explore the Solar System. This mission, designated Tianwen-2, follows the Tianwen-1 mission, which became the first Chinese spacecraft to land on Mars in 2021.

Sending samples home … China has two objectives for Tianwen-2. First, Tianwen-2 will fly to a near-Earth asteroid designated 469219 Kamoʻoalewa, or 2016 HO3. Once there, the spacecraft will retrieve a rocky sample from the asteroid’s surface and bring the material back to Earth in late 2027 for analysis in labs. After the spacecraft releases its sample carrier to land on Earth, Tianwen-2 will change course and head to a mysterious comet-like object found between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

Next Kuiper launch gets a June date. United Launch Alliance said Thursday that an Atlas V rocket will launch its second batch of Amazon’s Project Kuiper satellites next month. The Atlas V 551 rocket launch is planned for 2: 29 pm ET on June 13 from Space Launch Complex-41, pending range approval.

A speedy turnaround … Amazon also confirmed that it has finished processing the Kuiper satellites for the launch, saying all 27 spacecraft have been integrated onto the rocket. Getting to space in June with this mission will mark an impressive turnaround from Amazon, given that its KA-01 mission, also with 27 Internet satellites, launched on April 28.

SpaceX set to launch another GPS satellite. SpaceX is gearing up to launch a Global Positioning System satellite for the US military on Friday from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, marking another high-profile national security mission that shifted from United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan to the Falcon 9 rocket, Space News reports. The launch of GPS III SV-08—the eighth satellite in the GPS III constellation—was originally assigned to United Launch Alliance but was switched to SpaceX as the military prioritizes getting advanced anti-jamming capabilities into orbit as quickly as possible.

Gotta go fast … This marks the second consecutive GPS III satellite to be switched from ULA to SpaceX, following December’s launch of GPS III SV-07. ULA’s Vulcan, which received certification to launch national security missions, continues to face delays and has accumulated a backlog of military launches. In a press call this week, Space Force officials said the mission was executed on an unusually accelerated timeline. Launch planning for GPS III SV-08 kicked off in February, with Lockheed Martin receiving a formal request on February 21 and SpaceX following on March 7, just under three months ahead of liftoff. That’s an extraordinary pace for a national security launch, they said, which typically takes 18 to 24 months from contract award.

Another Starship launch, another second-stage issue. SpaceX made some progress on another test flight of the world’s most powerful rocket Tuesday, finally overcoming technical problems that plagued the program’s two previous launches, Ars reports. But minutes into the mission, SpaceX’s Starship lost control as it cruised through space, then tumbled back into the atmosphere somewhere over the Indian Ocean nearly an hour after taking off from Starbase, Texas, the company’s privately owned spaceport near the US-Mexico border. During the rocket’s two previous test flights—each using an upgraded “Block 2” Starship design—problems in the ship’s propulsion system led to leaks during launch, eventually triggering an early shutdown of the rocket’s main engines.

Not great, not terrible … On both flights, the vehicle spun out of control and broke apart, spreading debris over an area near the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The good news is that that didn’t happen on Tuesday. The ship’s main engines fired for their full duration, putting the vehicle on its expected trajectory toward a splashdown in the Indian Ocean. For a short time, it appeared the ship was on track for a successful flight. The bad news is that Tuesday’s test flight revealed more problems, preventing SpaceX from achieving the most important goals Musk outlined going into the launch, including testing Starship’s reentry tiles.

Elon Musk talks Starship version 3. In an interview with Ars Technica, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said he expects that an upgraded version of Starship—essentially Block 3 of the vehicle with upgraded Raptor engines—should fly before the end of the year. The business end of the rocket will have a sleek look: “The upgraded Raptors have a complete redesign of the aft end of the booster and the ship,” Musk said. “So, because we don’t need the heat shield around the upper portion of the engine, it greatly simplifies the base of the booster and the ship. It’ll look a little, frankly, naked, especially on the booster side, because the engines will just be there, like, not with stuff around them.”

A difficult upgrade to work through … “This is a design change that I really had to push the team very hard to do, to get rid of any secondary structure, and any parts that could get burned off because there will be no heat shield,” Musk added. “So it’ll be very clear when we have a Raptor 3. Version 3 of the Ship and Booster has quite a radical redesign.” Given the challenges that version 2 of Starship has faced with its recent flights, an upgrade in the overall design appears to be much-needed.

Next three launches

May 30: Falcon 9 | GPS III SV-08 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 17: 23 UTC

May 31: New Shepard | NS-32 | Launch Site One, West Texas | 13: 30 UTC

May 31: Falcon 9 | Starlink 11-18 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, California | 20: 01 UTC

Photo of Eric Berger

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 Report: Northrop backs Firefly and names its rocket; Xodiac will fly no more Read More »