For $995 you could buy a decent second-hand lawnmower, a mid-range mattress, or, if a government spreadsheet has a bad day, a piece of Apollo 11 with moon dust still caught in its seams.

That last one happened. In February 2015, an online auction held on behalf of the US Marshals Service listed a white zippered pouch stamped “Lunar Sample Return”. Nancy Lee Carlson of Inverness, Illinois, bid $995 and won. She knew it had flown on something. What she did not know was that it had ridden along on the first crewed landing on the Moon.

How a moon bag ended up in a garage in Kansas

Blame starts with Max Ary, who ran the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson from 1976 to 2002 and was convicted in November 2005 on twelve federal counts, including theft of government property, wire fraud and money laundering. Investigators searching his garage two years earlier had found a box, and the bag was inside it. As documented by The Hutchinson News, Ary was ordered to pay more than $132,000 in restitution for the space artefacts he had taken, a mix of property belonging to NASA and the museum itself. He always maintained he had simply muddled his own collection with theirs.

His forfeited property went to auction to cover the bill. That is where the mix-up happened. Per the Associated Press, government officials later said two lunar bags had been merged into a single entry when their inventory numbers were combined on spreadsheets. One was from Apollo 17. The other had been to the Sea of Tranquility, and nobody caught the difference before the gavel came down.

What the fabric was hiding

Carlson did the sensible thing and posted the pouch to NASA’s Johnson Space Center for authentication.

Terrible idea, as it turned out. Curators tested the cloth, found lunar material embedded in the fibres, and established that the pouch had served as the outer decontamination bag around the first rocks Neil Armstrong scooped up during the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Then NASA kept it, arguing the bag was government property that should be on public display, not sitting in someone’s living room, and asking the Justice Department to reverse the forfeiture.

Carlson sued. Twice, in two states.

The ruling nobody at NASA wanted

In December 2016, Judge J. Thomas Marten of the US District Court for Kansas ruled that Carlson was “a good faith purchaser, in a sale conducted according to law,” as reported by Robert Pearlman at collectSPACE. Marten went out of his way to say NASA had done nothing wrong here, and that the bag only mattered at all because of what NASA’s own people had pulled off in 1969. He also said he had no power to unwind a sale that had already gone through. Space.com later reported that NASA handed the bag back in February 2017.

Sold at Sotheby’s, well short of the estimate

Sotheby’s offered the pouch on 20 July 2017, 48 years to the day after Armstrong used it. NPR put the hammer price at $1.5 million, or $1,812,500 once Sotheby’s premium was added, which sounds enormous until you notice the house had estimated $2 million to $4 million. The buyer stayed anonymous.

Plenty of people thought the sale should never have happened at all. Michelle Hanlon of For All Moonkind, a group campaigning to protect the Apollo landing sites, said in a statement carried by Smithsonian magazine that the bag belonged in a museum where the world could share in the achievement it represents. Carlson told CBS News she decided to sell because she no longer felt it was safe in her home.

The dust went on to have its own career

NASA’s testing had lifted particles off the bag onto carbon tape mounted on aluminium stubs, and the agency held on to them after returning the pouch. collectSPACE reported that Carlson sued again in January 2019, claiming the testing had damaged the bag, dragged down its market value and caused her real distress, and demanding the return of the lunar material itself. That dispute settled out of court, and the samples went to her.

Which is how, in April 2022, five aluminium stubs, each topped with a 10-millimetre disc of carbon tape, came up in a New York saleroom. Bonhams sold them for $504,375, well under a pre-sale estimate of $800,000 to $1.2 million. Bidding opened at $220,000, seven bids came in, and the hammer fell at $400,000. Independent testing found four of the five stubs carried particles matching Armstrong’s first sample.

NASA still holds almost all of the 382 kilograms of rock, dust and core material brought home by the six Apollo landings. Its position on the rest hasn’t shifted in half a century: this material belongs to the public, not to private collectors. That stance holds up fine, right until two rows get merged on a spreadsheet.

Somewhere out there is a collector nobody can name, holding a cloth bag worth more than most houses, backed by a government receipt for $995 confirming the sale was done by the book.

The post The U.S. government accidentally sold an Apollo 11 bag still carrying traces of moon dust for just $995 in 2015 — the Illinois woman who bought it survived a legal fight with NASA, then sold the same bag at Sotheby’s two years later for $1.8 million appeared first on Space Daily.

The International Space Station has been in continuous crewed operation since November 2000, which means somebody has been living roughly four hundred kilometres above the surface of the Earth every single day for the past twenty-five years without a break. During that time the station has been visited by more than two hundred and eighty astronauts and cosmonauts from more than twenty countries, and each of them has faced the same practical problem that any long-term resident of anywhere eventually has to solve.

Their clothes get dirty. And the space station, for reasons that come down to the physics of orbital resupply, does not have and has never had a washing machine on board. What NASA and the Russian space agency have therefore developed over the intervening decades is one of the more counterintuitive laundry solutions in any modern human institution. There is no laundry. The clothes go into a cargo capsule when the astronauts are done with them. The cargo capsule burns up on the way home.

Why nobody bothered to send a washing machine up

The reason is water. Aboard the space station every drop of water is a precious resource that either has to be lifted up from Earth at roughly $10,000 per kilogram in launch costs, or has to be extracted and recycled from the crew’s own urine, sweat and exhaled breath through a purification system that operates continuously in the background of station life. The station recycles roughly 90 per cent of the water it produces internally, which is considerably better than any comparable industrial recycling system on Earth. But even at that recycling rate, adding a washing machine to the water demand of the station would consume enough additional water per cycle to fundamentally change the economics of resupply. According to a 2017 VICE interview with Robert Trevino, a senior engineer with NASA’s Crew and Thermal Systems Division who is responsible for astronaut clothing on the station, the engineering team has been examining this question for years. NASA’s own internal trade studies compared the water and power requirements of a hypothetical station laundry system against the cost of simply replacing dirty clothes with fresh ones sent up on cargo runs. Replacing the clothes turned out to be cheaper. So that is what NASA does.

If space exploration fascinates you, you’ll enjoy this video we made on why astronauts come home feeling like they’re being watched…

What this means in practical terms is that astronauts on the station wear each piece of clothing for as long as it can reasonably be worn before it becomes unusable. Exercise clothes get roughly two weeks of use because the mandatory hour of daily exercise required to prevent bone and muscle loss in microgravity produces enough sweat to defeat the antibacterial coating on the fabric within a fortnight. Regular daily-wear clothes, meaning the cotton polos and cargo shorts that most station astronauts prefer, get anywhere between one and three months of wear per garment. Underwear rotation is up to the individual crew member. Trevino told VICE that former astronaut Don Pettit was known to have worn the same pair of shorts for months at a stretch, which was apparently a source of considerable amusement among his crewmates. The clothing is sourced by NASA’s contractor Lockheed Martin from ordinary commercial suppliers, including Lands’ End, Cabela’s, and Blackhawk. There is nothing technologically special about the fabric.

Where the clothes actually end up

Once a garment has reached the end of its useful wearing life, it goes into the station’s waste system alongside the packaging, food waste, expired equipment, and general trash that the crew generates every day. The waste is bagged, taped, and stored in whichever visiting cargo vehicle happens to be docked at the time. There are currently three different cargo vehicles that regularly deliver supplies to the station. Russia’s Progress capsule and Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus vehicle are both single-use, meaning they are launched from Earth full of supplies, unloaded at the station, refilled with trash, undocked, and then deliberately deorbited over the Pacific Ocean where they burn up in the upper atmosphere on the way down. SpaceX’s Dragon capsule is the exception. It is reusable, and it returns to Earth intact via parachute for a splashdown in the Pacific and eventual reuse on a subsequent mission. So while Dragon comes home in one piece, the trash from every Progress and Cygnus run ends up as a spectacular fireball crossing the sky somewhere in the upper atmosphere above the South Pacific.

According to Space.com’s November 2023 reporting by managing editor Brett Tingley on the reentry of the Russian Progress MS-23 cargo spacecraft, the reentry of a fully loaded trash-carrying capsule is a visually striking event. The Progress MS-23 undocked from the station on 29 November 2023 carrying, in the words of the Roscosmos cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko who saw it off, “old equipment and household waste, or everything the experts have decided to toss from the station.” Four hours later NASA astronaut Jasmin Moghbeli, who had been alerted by mission control to look out of a specific window at a specific time, was able to photograph the reentry from the ISS itself. Her photographs show what looks like a spectacular meteor. Bright trails of fire streak across the darkness of the upper atmosphere. The main capsule breaks apart into several distinct fragments as the atmospheric heating destroys its structural integrity. Then everything disperses into smaller and smaller sparks until nothing recognisable is left. Moghbeli wrote on X afterwards that the whole event lasted only two or three minutes and reminded her of fireworks.

What was inside the capsule during those two or three minutes was, among many other things, the accumulated clothing that seven astronauts and cosmonauts on the station had been wearing over the preceding several months. Somewhere in the fireball was Kononenko’s old exercise gear, along with the daily-wear cotton polos of the American, Japanese, and Danish crew members who had been aboard during the same period. Whether any of the specific garments in question had been observed by anyone on the ground as bright flashes in the night sky is impossible to say with certainty. But the fireball that briefly crossed the upper atmosphere above the South Pacific on the evening of 29 November 2023 did in fact contain, among its many other contents, the discarded underwear of at least seven people who had been living in low Earth orbit at the time.

Which is to say that the surprising claim in the title turns out to be more or less exactly what actually happens. The station has no washing machine. The clothes get worn until they can’t be worn any longer. They get packed into whichever cargo vehicle is next scheduled to depart. And the cargo vehicle, on its final trajectory back through the upper atmosphere, becomes a briefly visible streak of light in the night sky before the whole thing burns away to nothing over the Pacific Ocean. If you happen to be looking up at the right moment from the right latitude, and if you know the timing of the current Progress or Cygnus deorbit schedule, you might catch one. And what you would be watching, in the strict literal sense, is somebody’s old socks and shirts on their final journey home.

The post Astronauts on the space station have no washing machine, because water is far too precious to waste on laundry, so they wear the same clothes for days and then pack the dirty ones into a cargo capsule that burns up on reentry, which means a fireball crossing the sky could, in theory, be a bundle of an astronaut’s old underwear. appeared first on Space Daily.

Portable travel monitors can transform productivity on the road by adding valuable screen space without much cost or bulk. Chuck’s Briefing compares 1080p and 4K options, discusses USB-C and HDMI connections, and power and battery considerations. Built-in audio, protective covers and stands, and why these minimalist monitors might not be just for travel are all part of why an inexpensive second display can make working with multiple apps far easier. 

💾

If you’re heading to Macstock Conference later this week, make sure you have everything you need to get the most out of this unique annual event. From the things you should do before you leave to the things that you need to have with you, the MacVoices’ Macstock Checklist will make sure you are ready for the year’s best Mac event. (Haven’t decided yet? On-site registration will be available!) 

💾

A wave of new services uses A.I. to monitor flights and hotel reservations to help you find lower prices. We look at how these tools work.

Humanity’s greatest challenge in becoming a multi-planet species may not be building bigger rockets or landing astronauts on Mars. Instead, it could come down to the question: Can humans safely conceive, carry pregnancies, and raise healthy children off Earth?

A new review published in Frontiers in Space Technologies argues that the answer to this question remains unclear. Drawing on decades of research on animal reproduction in space alongside emerging advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, synthetic biology, and cybernetic systems, the researchers suggest that future generations born off Earth may require technologies far beyond today’s medical capabilities.

In the most speculative sections of the paper, researchers even envision a scenario in which reproduction itself acts as a tool for helping humans gradually adapt to life in space.

Rather than presenting new experiments, the paper synthesizes existing evidence while outlining possible technological pathways that could someday enable permanent human settlements on the Moon, Mars, or even deeper into the solar system.

The central message is that surviving in space is only the first hurdle. Establishing self-sustaining civilizations will ultimately depend on whether human reproduction can succeed under conditions of microgravity, radiation, isolation, and other environmental stresses that evolution never prepared us to face.

“It is proposed that prenatal and early postnatal developmental stages may constitute critical biological windows for facilitating long-term adaptation to space,” researchers write. “Such interactions could ultimately transform reproduction and early development into active drivers of human evolution, contributing to the emergence of biologically distinct populations progressively adapted to diverse space environments.”

Despite more than six decades of human spaceflight, no human has ever conceived or carried a pregnancy in space. Therefore, science has little direct evidence about what would happen if astronauts attempted to start families off Earth. Nearly everything researchers know comes from studies involving animals ranging from sea urchins and fish to frogs, birds, mice, and rats.

The results are encouraging in some respects but troubling in others.

Several non-mammalian species have successfully reproduced in orbit. Medaka fish, for example, became the first vertebrates to reproduce in space, with fertilization rates comparable to those seen on Earth. Yet, even when reproduction occurs successfully, researchers have documented developmental abnormalities in some species, suggesting that space environments can slightly modify embryonic development.

Rodent studies paint an even more complicated picture. Fertilization is not impossible under microgravity, but early embryonic development frequently suffers. Experiments have shown reduced blastocyst formation, slower embryo development, lower live birth rates, and changes in gene expression. Other studies have linked space radiation to DNA damage, genomic instability, and developmental defects affecting the nervous system.

At the same time, some findings show surprising resilience. Mouse embryos cultured aboard the International Space Station have developed into apparently normal blastocysts under certain conditions. In contrast, freeze-dried mouse sperm stored in orbit for months later produced healthy offspring after returning to Earth.

These mixed findings suggest that reproduction may be biologically possible, but far from routine, under space conditions.

In their review, researchers also examined growing evidence that spaceflight affects male and female reproductive health even before conception occurs.

Microgravity and radiation appear capable of disrupting sperm production, reducing testosterone levels, altering ovarian function, impairing egg maturation, and interfering with hormone regulation.

Some studies suggest sperm can still swim under simulated microgravity, but lose their capability to navigate effectively toward an egg. Others report that radiation accelerates the depletion of ovarian follicles and increases DNA damage in reproductive cells.

More concerning is the possibility that some biological changes could be passed to future generations through epigenetic mechanisms. Experiments involving mice have suggested that spaceflight may alter gene regulation in sperm and influence gene expression in offspring, although the long-term significance is still unknown.

For women, pregnancy itself could present an even greater challenge. On Earth, pregnancy requires profound cardiovascular changes that help deliver oxygen and nutrients to a growing fetus. Microgravity, however, causes fluid redistribution, muscle loss, reduced blood volume, bone demineralization, and changes in cardiovascular function that could interfere with placental development and fetal growth. Radiation exposure, oxidative stress, circadian disruption, and limited medical support would only add to those risks.

Researchers argue that simply shielding astronauts from radiation may not be enough. Gravity itself appears to function as a biological signal that influences everything from cell organization to tissue development. That realization carries renewed interest in artificial gravity as a potential solution.

Instead of depending solely on habitats built on the Moon or Mars, future space settlements could include rotating structures that generate centrifugal force to recreate Earth-like gravity.

Such habitats have appeared in science fiction for decades, but researchers suggest they may ultimately become essential for healthy conception, pregnancy, childhood development, and multigenerational life off Earth.

Researchers propose dedicated orbital research platforms where scientists could systematically study reproduction under lunar, Martian, or custom-designed gravity levels before humans attempt permanent settlements.

Artificial intelligence also features prominently in the researchers’ vision of the future. They propose AI-powered “digital twins” capable of integrating biological, physiological, and environmental data to simulate how embryos, pregnancies, and developing children might respond to different gravitational and radiation environments. These computer simulations could help researchers examine scenarios that would be difficult, or ethically impossible, to test directly in humans.

Perhaps the paper’s most futuristic proposal is something the researchers call Synthetic Reproductive Adaptive Enhancement Technology, or SRAET. This speculative concept envisions highly automated reproductive systems combining artificial wombs, advanced reproductive biotechnology, biosensors, AI-assisted monitoring, and predictive developmental modeling into a closed-loop environment capable of supporting conception through birth under carefully controlled conditions.

The framework explores the controversial possibility that future advances in gene editing and synthetic biology could one day help humans adapt biologically to off-world environments.

Researchers emphasize that such ideas are still speculative and acknowledge the enormous ethical, biological, and safety concerns surrounding germline modification, off-target mutations, and multigenerational consequences. Rather than advocating immediate implementation, they present these possibilities as conceptual pathways that justify careful scientific and ethical discussion.

For fans of science fiction, many of these concepts may sound remarkably familiar. Yet, researchers attempt to ground their arguments in existing developmental biology, reproductive medicine, aerospace engineering, and space medicine while clearly distinguishing current evidence from future speculation.

In the end, researchers suggest that the future of human space travel may depend less on propulsion systems than on understanding how life develops under entirely new environmental conditions. If humanity hopes to establish permanent settlements off Earth, science will first need to ensure that future generations are able to begin life safely under alien skies.

“Ultimately, the greatest challenge of human expansion beyond Earth may not be transporting humans into space, but understanding how life itself can develop, adapt, and evolve under space conditions,” researchers write. “In this sense, SRAET would not merely support reproduction beyond Earth; it would represent a developmental biotechnology through which humanity may begin to actively participate in shaping its own evolutionary future.”

Study: Ferraz M, Moeharram L. “Past, present and future of human reproduction and development in space.” Frontiers in Space Technologies. 2026.

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

From melted electric sockets to shabby alternatives, readers tell of dealings with platform when things go wrong

Jane Ripley* spent some time researching the best apartment to stay in for her family’s trip to Batumi in Georgia, eventually settling on one with an “exceptional” rating on Booking.com.

But when the Ripleys arrived at 11pm on the first day, they were directed to another property that was shabby and had stains on the furniture and ceiling.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Sergey Alimov/Getty Images

© Photograph: Sergey Alimov/Getty Images

© Photograph: Sergey Alimov/Getty Images

Traveling is a lot easier if you can track your stuff with AirTags in your luggage. Make sure your bag stays with you all along your journey.

(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)

Astronauts come home from long stays in orbit measurably taller than when they launched. The usual figure is one to three per cent of standing height, which for someone around 1.8 metres works out at roughly five centimetres, and the gain disappears within days of landing as body weight starts pressing down through the spinal column again.

Nobody in the business finds this surprising. What is less widely appreciated is that the number exists in the literature mainly because spacecraft seats and spacesuits have to be built around it.

What the measurements actually show

Early data came from awkward improvisation. During the nine-day Apollo-Soyuz Test Project flight in 1975, stature was recorded with the crewmember’s feet against the docking module hatch and body supine along the control and display panel, a colleague reading off a measurement decal taped to that panel. Those readings showed increases of up to three per cent within about two days, after which stature held steady, a history summarised in Karen Young and Sudhakar Rajulu’s paper in Applied Ergonomics.

On the 84-day Skylab 4 mission, William Thornton measured one crewmember to the sixteenth of an inch. That astronaut gained 3.8 centimetres by the end of the mission, with the increase plateauing at around day 29.

In their review in Frontiers in Physiology, David Green and Jonathan Scott give the same range, noting older reports of gains as large as seven centimetres. They set that against the ordinary overnight increase of about one per cent, to make the point that months of unloading produce something larger than a long sleep, not merely more of the same.

Where the disc explanation stops

Swelling of the intervertebral discs in the absence of compressive load is the standard account, and the imaging record complicates it.

Douglas Chang and colleagues at the University of California San Diego published an MRI study of six crewmembers in Spine in December 2016, before and after six-month ISS missions. Lean paraspinal muscle content fell from 86 per cent of total muscle cross-sectional area to 72 per cent immediately after flight, and about two thirds of that loss had been recovered by a follow-up scan 46 days later, which still left lean content below preflight levels. Lumbar disc heights showed no appreciable difference at any point measured.

Those are post-flight scans, so they cannot describe what the discs do in orbit. Reviewing the evidence for the European Space Agency, Daniel Belavý and colleagues put it plainly: increased disc swelling during spaceflight has not been shown directly, only inferred from the height gain and from bed-rest studies. NASA’s write-up of the seated height experiment names a second contributor, without gravity the natural curve of the spine straightens, and a straighter column is a longer one.

Why the number is a hardware requirement

Spinal elongation became a design constraint before it became a research question. Young and Rajulu note that some crewmembers have had trouble donning spacesuits after extended periods in orbit, and that an allowance of 2.54 centimetres is added to suit torso length as standard. Soyuz crew fly in a pre-moulded Kazbek seat liner sized on the ground.

Seat layout is the tighter squeeze. Orion stacks four crew two by two, which limits headroom for the lower pair, and the Applied Ergonomics paper puts the clearance at stake at 6.6 centimetres. Its sample was 29 crewmembers, eight from ISS increments and 21 from Shuttle flights. An earlier NASA abstract on the same work reported in-flight seated height rising by roughly two to six per cent, a larger proportional change than the figures quoted for standing height. Seated height and stature are different measurements, and it is the seated one that governs whether a helmet clears the structure above it.

An astronaut who grows in orbit and cannot fit the seat is a re-entry problem, not a curiosity.

The reloading is the part that matters

Coming back down is where the clinical interest lies. The Skylab 4 crewmember whose height Thornton tracked reported back pain on landing day, associated with a herniated disc.

Chang and colleagues cite the figure that has driven much of the recent work: a 4.3 times higher rate of herniated discs in the astronaut population than in matched controls, reported by Smith Johnston and colleagues in Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine in 2010. The dataset behind it deserves attention. As Jojo Sayson and Alan Hargens describe it in Acta Astronautica, the analysis drew on NASA’s Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health, covering 321 astronauts from April 1959 to December 2006, which makes it largely a record of the Apollo and Shuttle era.

That distinction does real work. The same ESA review reports that Apollo-era and Shuttle crews had a higher incidence of disc injury than ISS and Mir crews, and puts much of the difference down to what happens once the vehicle opens. Shuttle crews landed seated and walked away. Soyuz crews are carried out and spend considerably longer lying down. Seven of the post-flight herniations in the Johnston data occurred within a week of landing and 14 within the first year, the window its prevention advice targets.

Green and Scott are blunt about what is missing. There are few contemporary reports of in-flight back injury and no recent studies of post-flight injury incidence, so the size of the current risk under current exercise regimes is not well characterised.

What to watch

Stature is no longer measured routinely aboard the ISS. It is taken before spacewalks, for suit fit, and otherwise largely left alone, which is part of why Green and Scott called for routine in-flight measurement, pre- and post-flight imaging, and injury tracking for at least two years after landing.

The open question is the one Chang’s group flagged at the end of their paper: whether an exercise countermeasure aimed specifically at the lumbar paraspinal muscles can be performed usefully with the equipment available on orbit, and whether it shortens recovery. That matters more for Artemis surface operations and any Mars-class transit than it does for low Earth orbit, because the reload would happen a long way from a rehabilitation team.

The post In microgravity, the human spine lengthens by as much as five centimetres, and astronauts come home temporarily taller than when they left, before gravity compresses the column again within days of landing appeared first on Space Daily.

The Trump administration on Monday barred US citizens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from returning home amid an Ebola outbreak that continues to outpace response efforts.

Reuters first reported late Monday that Americans currently in the DRC or those who have recently traveled to the Ebola-stricken country have been put on a "do-not-board" list. They cannot travel back to the US until they have spent 21 days in a third country. The order, taken under a transportation authority known as Title 49, was independently confirmed by Politico on Tuesday.

Both outlets noted that roughly two dozen Americans who had been set to board flights home on Tuesday have already been blocked by the new rule. It remains unclear if the bar also applies to government workers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has at least two dozen employees working in the DRC.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty | GLODY MURHABAZI

A long-standing ban on commercial supersonic flights over the United States would be overturned in a new rule proposed by the US Federal Aviation Administration. That could pave the way for the possible return of commercial supersonic airliners—as long as such aircraft can reduce the ground-level impacts of their sonic booms.

The FAA originally banned overland supersonic flights by civil aircraft in 1973, following US military tests involving supersonic flights over US cities such as Oklahoma City, Chicago, and St. Louis in the 1960s. But the Trump administration has championed the repeal of the ban to pave the way for supersonic airliners that could operate without disruptive sonic booms. So the FAA’s new rulemaking action on June 30, 2026, follows the direction of an executive order issued by President Trump on June 6, 2025.

The newly proposed rule would replace the 53-year prohibition with an interim “noise-based” certification standard requiring any sonic boom overpressure at the surface to be kept below 0.11 pounds per square foot. That proposed standard is based on the Colorado-based startup Boom Supersonic having demonstrated quiet Mach cutoff flights with its XB-1 aircraft—harnessing specific atmospheric conditions while flying just beyond supersonic speeds at higher altitudes so that the aircraft’s shockwaves are refracted upward into the atmosphere rather than traveling to the ground.

Read full article

Comments

© Boom Supersonic

For roughly the last three billion years, half of the Moon has been hiding. Earth’s gravity caught the Moon early in its existence and slowed its spin until the same face was permanently turned toward us — a process called tidal locking, completed somewhere between three and four billion years ago, which left every human civilisation that ever existed staring at the same single hemisphere of the same single satellite for the entire duration of human history. No human being saw the other half until 7 October 1959, when the Soviet Luna 3 probe transmitted the first photographs from a flyby trajectory. No human or human-built object touched the far side until 3 January 2019, when China’s Chang’e-4 mission soft-landed Yutu-2, a small rover, into Von Kármán crater. No spacecraft of any nationality had ever collected and returned physical material from the far side to a laboratory on Earth — until 25 June 2024, when the return capsule of Chang’e-6 parachuted into the grasslands of Inner Mongolia carrying 1,935.3 grams of lunar soil and rock fragments scooped and drilled from the South Pole-Aitken Basin.

According to a comprehensive reference summary of the Chang’e-6 mission architecture and operational sequence, the mission’s four-component spacecraft — a lander, an ascent vehicle, an orbiter, and an Earth-return capsule — launched from Wenchang Space Launch Site on Hainan Island aboard a Long March 5 rocket on 3 May 2024. The spacecraft entered lunar orbit on 8 May, then spent approximately three weeks mapping potential landing sites and refining its trajectory. On 1 June, the lander and ascent vehicle separated from the orbiter and descended autonomously toward the surface, communicating with mission control in Beijing through the Queqiao-2 relay satellite that had been launched into a high lunar halo orbit in March 2024 specifically to bridge communications between far-side surface operations and Earth. Direct radio contact with the far side is impossible — the lunar mass itself blocks the signal — and every far-side mission, beginning with Chang’e-4 in 2019, has required a dedicated communications relay positioned to see both Earth and the lunar surface simultaneously.

Where the lander touched down

Chang’e-6’s landing site was within the Apollo Basin, a 538-kilometre-wide impact crater that sits inside the much larger South Pole-Aitken Basin — the largest, oldest, and deepest confirmed impact structure in the entire solar system. As reported by Scientific American’s coverage of the Chang’e-6 sample return and the scientific significance of the landing site, the South Pole-Aitken Basin stretches approximately 2,500 kilometres across the lunar surface and reaches depths of approximately 8 kilometres below the surrounding terrain. The basin was formed approximately 4 billion years ago, in the period of intense bombardment that followed the formation of the solar system, by an impact substantial enough to potentially have excavated material from the Moon’s mantle and brought it to the surface. If true — and the question of whether SPA Basin ejecta actually includes mantle material has been an open scientific question for decades — then samples from the basin would represent the first physical material from beneath the lunar crust that humans had ever held in a laboratory.

The lander spent approximately 49 hours on the surface, using a robotic scoop to collect material from the immediate surface and a drill to extract samples from up to two metres below ground. Per the Planetary Society’s overview of the Chang’e-6 surface operations and sample-handling sequence, a small 5-kilogram rover named Jinchan (“Golden Cicada”), which had been kept secret during the launch preparations, was deployed from the side of the lander and photographed the spacecraft from a distance of several metres — producing the first close-up image of a lunar far-side lander taken from the lunar surface. The collected samples were transferred into a sealed container inside the ascent vehicle, which lifted off from the top of the lander on 3 June at 23:38 UTC, rendezvoused with the orbiter in lunar orbit on 6 June, transferred the sample container into the Earth-return capsule, and was subsequently crashed back into the lunar surface. The orbiter and return capsule then began the journey back to Earth, with the return capsule separating from the orbiter shortly before atmospheric entry and executing a skip-reentry trajectory — bouncing off the upper atmosphere once to shed velocity before completing the descent — to a soft landing in Inner Mongolia on 25 June. Total mission duration was 53 days.

Why far-side samples matter

The asymmetry between the lunar near side and far side is, by every available scientific measure, one of the larger unsolved problems in planetary science. The near side — the half of the Moon humans see from Earth — is covered for approximately 30 percent of its surface by basaltic maria, the dark plains of solidified ancient lava that the early astronomers mistook for seas. The far side has almost none. As detailed in a planetary scientist’s analysis of what the Chang’e-6 samples could reveal about lunar history, less than 1 percent of the far side is covered by maria. The far side’s crust is substantially thicker than the near side’s. The far side contains substantially lower concentrations of the geochemically distinctive elements collectively known as KREEP — potassium, rare earth elements, and phosphorus — that dominate the near-side surface chemistry. Why the two halves of the same body should differ so dramatically in their geological and chemical composition has been a subject of active research and unresolved theorising since the first far-side photographs were transmitted by Luna 3 in 1959.

Initial analyses of the Chang’e-6 samples have already begun producing scientifically substantial results. As covered in a November 2024 paper in Science by Cui et al. of the Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, fragments of volcanic basalt from the samples have been dated to approximately 2.83 billion years old — substantially younger than most far-side material had been expected to be, suggesting that volcanic activity persisted on the far side for far longer than existing models predicted. A parallel analysis led by Zhang et al. at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, published in Nature the same month, produced essentially the same age estimate using a different sample fraction. Earlier work led by Wang et al. on volcanic glass beads from the Chang’e-5 mission to the lunar near side had identified evidence of unexpectedly recent volcanism dated to approximately 120 million years ago. Whether comparably young volcanism occurred on the far side remains an open question that the continued analysis of Chang’e-6 samples may eventually address. The far-side basalts that have been dated so far contain substantially lower concentrations of radioactive heat-producing elements than near-side basalts of comparable age, which raises a new puzzle: if the far-side magma source was as chemically cool as the analyses suggest, what kept it molten long enough to produce volcanism extending into the relatively recent geological past? The current working hypothesis, which the analysis of the remaining samples over the coming years will substantially refine, is that the thin crust beneath the South Pole-Aitken Basin allowed mantle material to remain partially molten and to erupt through the comparatively thinner overlying rock long after the rest of the far side had cooled.

The 1,935 grams of lunar soil in a laboratory in Beijing now represent the only physical samples humans have ever recovered from a hemisphere of the Moon that, for the entire duration of human civilisation and for billions of years before it, has been permanently hidden from view. The next missions in the series — Chang’e-7 in 2026 and Chang’e-8 in 2028 — will focus on the lunar south pole, searching for water ice and testing in-situ resource utilisation in preparation for the International Lunar Research Station that China plans to begin building by 2035. The same techniques that produced the Chang’e-6 sample return will be used, with modifications, for the Tianwen-3 Mars sample return mission scheduled to launch in 2028 — a mission that, on its current schedule, will deliver the first samples from the surface of another planet to Earth in approximately five years.

The post In June 2024, a small Chinese spacecraft called Chang’e-6 became the first machine in human history to return samples from the far side of the Moon — drilling and scooping roughly 2 kilograms of lunar soil from a region no spacecraft had ever sampled, and delivering it back to Earth, giving humanity its first physical material from the half of the Moon that has been permanently turned away from our planet since it became tidally locked billions of years ago appeared first on Space Daily.

Imagine throwing a refrigerator at a mountain travelling 135,000 kilometres per hour through deep space, after a ten-year flight, and asking the refrigerator to land softly enough to keep ten scientific instruments intact. This is, in essential respects, what the European Space Agency attempted in November 2014, and remarkably it almost entirely worked. The mother spacecraft, Rosetta, had launched from Kourou in French Guiana on 2 March 2004, carrying Philae folded against its side, on a trajectory that would take both vehicles past Earth three times and Mars once for gravity-assist accelerations, past two asteroids (21 Lutetia and 2867 Šteins) for scientific flybys, and across approximately ten and a half years of continuous deep-space travel — much of it in deliberate hibernation, with most systems powered down to conserve energy across the long stretches between gravity assists. The original target had been a different comet entirely, Comet 46P/Wirtanen, but a failure of an Ariane 5 rocket in late 2002 had delayed the launch and forced the European Space Agency to select a different target. The new target was Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, a 4-kilometre-wide irregular ice-and-dust body in a 6.5-year orbit between Jupiter and the inner solar system, named after the two Soviet astronomers who had discovered it in 1969. Rosetta and Philae arrived at the comet on 6 August 2014. Rosetta became the first spacecraft in history to enter orbit around a comet. Philae’s planned descent followed three months later.

According to the European Space Agency’s official announcement of the Philae touchdown, the descent itself began at 08:35 UTC on 12 November 2014, when Philae separated from Rosetta at a distance of approximately 22.7 kilometres from the comet’s centre. The lander then drifted slowly toward the surface for approximately seven hours at a relative velocity of about one metre per second — roughly the pace of a brisk walk. The plan, on touchdown, was for two harpoons fired from the bottom of the lander to anchor it to the comet’s surface and for a small thruster on the top of the lander to push it down against the recoil. The combined gravitational pull of the comet on the 100-kilogram lander was approximately one-hundred-thousandth of Earth’s surface gravity — so weak that any upward force on Philae’s body would, without the anchoring systems, simply send it bouncing back into space. The first touchdown occurred at 15:34 UTC at a site the mission team had named Agilkia, after the Egyptian island where the original Philae obelisk now sits.

Why the lander bounced

The anchoring systems did not work. The harpoons did not fire. The top-mounted thruster did not fire. The ice screws built into the landing legs could not penetrate the unexpectedly hard surface material of the comet — which, contrary to the team’s expectations of soft snow-like consistency, turned out to be more like solid water ice. The result was that Philae, on contact, behaved exactly as a 100-kilogram object behaves when it touches a surface at one metre per second in essentially zero gravity with no anchoring of any kind: it bounced. The first bounce sent the lander approximately one kilometre back up into the comet’s tenuous atmosphere, where it drifted slowly for nearly two hours before falling back to the surface for a second bounce, and then a final, much smaller bounce, before coming to rest at 17:31 UTC at a location the team named Abydos — about a kilometre from the originally planned landing site, against the wall of a cliff, in a position where direct sunlight reached the lander’s solar panels for only approximately 1.5 hours per 12.4-hour comet rotation period, rather than the 6 to 7 hours per rotation that the mission team had planned for.

The science programme proceeded anyway. As reported in a comprehensive reference summary of the Philae mission and its scientific operations on the comet, all ten of the lander’s onboard scientific instruments were operated at least once during the approximately 57 hours that Philae remained active on the comet’s surface — drawing on the energy stored in the lander’s primary battery, which had been charged on the journey out and was not dependent on solar power for the initial science sequence. The instruments captured the first photographs ever taken from the surface of a comet, performed the first in-situ chemical analysis of cometary nucleus material, detected organic compounds including the amino-acid precursor glycine, measured the magnetic and thermal properties of the surface, and characterised the dust environment in the immediate vicinity of the lander. At 00:08 UTC on 15 November 2014, the primary battery was exhausted. The lander entered hibernation. The mission team’s hope was that as the comet’s orbit took it closer to the Sun in the subsequent months, additional sunlight on the solar panels might allow the secondary battery to recharge sufficiently to wake the lander up. This hope was substantially realised — Philae communicated sporadically with Rosetta between 13 June and 9 July 2015 — but the contact never stabilised into the sustained science operations the team had hoped for, and after 9 July 2015 no further signals were received.

What the mission found

Per National Geographic’s overview of the scientific discoveries that emerged from the Rosetta and Philae mission across the subsequent years of analysis, the combined results from the orbiter and the lander substantially revised the existing scientific understanding of cometary composition and the role of comets in the early solar system. The water on Comet 67P, as measured by Rosetta’s mass spectrometers, has a deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio approximately three times higher than the water in Earth’s oceans — which substantially weakened the long-standing hypothesis that the bulk of Earth’s water was delivered by comet impacts during the early bombardment of the inner solar system. Cometary water, in 67P at least, does not match Earth water. Asteroids or another source must have supplied the difference. The mission also identified complex organic molecules in the comet’s outgassing material, including molecular oxygen (a finding the team had not predicted and could not initially explain), glycine, methylamine, ethylamine, and other carbon-based compounds that are precursors to the building blocks of biology. The two-lobed “rubber duck” shape of Comet 67P, photographed at high resolution by Rosetta’s cameras, turned out to be the result of two separate cometesimals having gently merged in the early solar system rather than a single body having been eroded into the irregular form.

As described in the comprehensive reference on the broader Rosetta mission and its final operational disposition, the orbiter itself was deliberately crashed into the comet on 30 September 2016, after the comet’s outbound orbit had carried it too far from the Sun for Rosetta’s solar panels to continue generating sufficient power. Philae’s exact landing location was identified in photographs taken by Rosetta’s high-resolution camera less than a month before the orbiter’s own demise — the lander wedged into a dark crack on the comet’s smaller lobe, its three legs visible in the image, exactly where the bounces had carried it on the afternoon of 12 November 2014. The two spacecraft now sit on the surface of Comet 67P together, accompanying it through its 6.5-year orbits around the Sun for the foreseeable astronomical future, the first human artefacts ever to permanently reside on the surface of a comet.

The post A small European spacecraft called Philae became the first machine in human history to soft-land on a comet — bouncing twice in near-zero gravity before settling in a shadowed crevice on Comet 67P — after a 10-year, 6.4-billion-kilometre journey across deep space, where it transmitted scientific readings home for roughly 60 hours before its batteries finally died appeared first on Space Daily.

A growing body of evidence suggests that leaving Earth may do far more than challenge the human body. According to a new study, the absence of gravity itself could temporarily reshape consciousness, loosening the brain’s most strongly ingrained assumptions and opening the door to altered perceptions, expanded awareness, and even experiences that resemble some aspects of psychedelic states.

As humanity prepares for longer stays on the Moon, commercial space tourism, and eventual missions to Mars, researchers contend that understanding what happens to the mind in microgravity may be just as important as understanding the engineering that gets astronauts there. According to them, gravity may not simply keep people anchored to the ground—it may also help anchor human consciousness itself.

In a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, researchers Dr. Annahita Nezami and Dr. Elisa Raffaella Ferre of Birkbeck, University of London, explored decades of neuroscience, psychology, and spaceflight research to propose that Earth’s gravitational pull acts as a deeply embedded “super-prior” within the brain. By disrupting this ancient reference point, microgravity may trigger widespread changes across neural networks that underpin perception, self-awareness, and emotional regulation.

“Human consciousness has evolved under the constant pull of terrestrial gravity, yet its role in shaping perception and awareness has received limited theoretical attention,” researchers write. “As spaceflight transitions from short missions to long-duration habitation, understanding how consciousness responds to non-terrestrial gravity becomes increasingly urgent.”

Every human brain evolved under the constant force of Earth’s gravity. From before birth onward, sensory systems constantly rely on gravity cues to determine which way is up, where the body is in space, and how to interpret movement.

Researchers argue that this constant exposure has made gravity one of the brain’s most reliable assumptions. In the language of predictive neuroscience, the brain constantly generates expectations about the world and updates them using incoming sensory information. Gravity, they say, functions as a basic expectation—a “1G super-prior”—that helps stabilize consciousness.

Remove that constant, and things begin to change.

In orbit, vestibular signals from the inner ear become unreliable. Visual, proprioceptive, and balance information no longer align as the brain evolved to expect. The resulting mismatch generates anticipation errors, forcing widespread recalibration.

Those changes are already well documented among astronauts. Space travelers commonly experience spatial disorientation, altered body perception, sleep disturbances, mood swings, and, in some cases, feelings of depersonalization or derealization—states in which individuals feel separated from themselves or perceive their surroundings as unreal.

Astronauts have also reported more positive and profound experiences. Many describe feeling “unmoored,” “expanded,” and deeply interconnected with humanity, or overwhelmed by awe while viewing Earth from orbit. This phenomenon, known as the Overview Effect, has been associated with lasting shifts in values, increased environmental concern, and enhanced feelings of oneness.

The study suggests that these experiences might originate from the same neurocognitive processes triggered when gravity’s stabilizing role is weakened.

“By perturbing the most stable embodied reference – gravity itself – spaceflight offers a rare window into how fundamental expectations shape consciousness,” researchers write. “The loosening of perceptual boundaries in microgravity has been proposed as a neurocognitive foundation for the Overview Effect.”

Brain imaging studies lend support to the idea. MRI scans of astronauts before and after extended-duration missions have revealed structural changes, including fluid redistribution, enlargement of brain ventricles, and gray matter remodeling. Functional MRI studies have also found changes in connectivity among vestibular, sensory, and default mode network regions involved in awareness and the combining of internal and external information.

Especially intriguing are changes observed in the default mode network, a system involved in introspection, self-referential thought, and consciousness. Activity inside this network appears to diminish after spaceflight, with some changes persisting for months after astronauts return to Earth.

Electroencephalography studies have likewise detected reductions in alpha-wave activity during and after missions, another sign that brain function is being reorganized in response to microgravity.

These neural changes led the researchers to an unexpected comparison.

Many of the same large-scale patterns recorded after spaceflight resemble effects previously documented under psychedelic compounds such as psilocybin and LSD. In both situations, highly organized brain networks appear to loosen, while communication between previously separate regions increases.

Researchers stress that the mechanisms are entirely different. Psychedelics act through serotonin receptors, whereas microgravity represents an environmental disruption rather than a pharmacological one. Yet both seem to converge by weakening the brain’s highest-level assumptions and increasing the combination of sensory information.

According to researchers, this convergence phenomenon suggests that spaceflight could provide scientists with a natural, drug-free model for studying transformative states of consciousness.

The researchers argue that terrestrial gravity, microgravity, and psychedelic states may represent different conditions along a spectrum defined by the strength of the brain’s deeply ingrained “1G super-prior.” As that stabilizing role weakens, top-down constraints relax, potentially increasing neuroplasticity and mental flexibility.

The implications go beyond astronaut health. Understanding how consciousness changes in unfamiliar environments may provide new clues to the neural foundations of self-awareness. It could also prove increasingly important as private citizens spend more time in space and human settlements expand away from Earth.

Researchers suggest that microgravity offers scientists something that cannot be replicated on Earth—a chance to observe what happens when one of evolution’s oldest assumptions suddenly disappears.

“By situating consciousness in an environment for which evolution offers no precedent, spaceflight positions microgravity as a powerful natural neurocognitive catalyst for transformative experience,” researchers write. “In stepping beyond Earth’s gravity, we gain a unique vantage point from which to examine the contingent foundations of human awareness and the conditions under which it can be fundamentally transformed.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

On my way to Tash Rabat from Son-Kul, both in Kyrgyzstan, sitting on the comfortable seats of a minibus, I had to pinch myself just to realize that it wasn’t a dream. I could see green valleys on one side of the road and the rugged brown Pamir Plateau on the other. As someone whoContinue reading "Capturing the night sky in Kyrgyzstan"

The post Capturing the night sky in Kyrgyzstan appeared first on Astronomy Magazine.

The popular framing of the question — why has no human walked on the Moon since 1972? — usually proceeds as though there is some technical answer to be found. The rockets must have stopped working. The engineering must have been forgotten. The expertise must have been lost in the half-century since Apollo 17 splashed down. The actual answer is substantially simpler and substantially less satisfying. The Apollo programme was not cancelled because it stopped being possible. It was cancelled because it stopped being useful for what it had been built to accomplish. The capability question is a downstream consequence of a political question that was settled in the early 1970s, when the American government decided that the goal of beating the Soviet Union to the Moon — having been achieved on 20 July 1969 with Apollo 11 — was no longer worth paying for, and that the remaining momentum of the Apollo programme should be redirected toward other priorities.

According to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s editorial reconstruction of the Apollo cancellations, the decisions to end the lunar programme were made in a sequence that began almost immediately after Apollo 11’s success. By December 1969 — five months after Neil Armstrong’s first footstep — one of President Richard Nixon’s top aides told NASA that “the President says that he doesn’t have enough money within the next couple of years and must accept limitation of [space] activity” and that Nixon “did not see the need to go to the moon six more times.” On 4 January 1970, the Apollo 20 mission was formally cancelled. In September 1970, Apollos 18 and 19 followed. The remaining missions — Apollos 14 through 17, the latter three already in advanced preparation — were allowed to proceed and were completed by December 1972. The Saturn V production line was shut down in 1970. The remaining unflown Saturn Vs were sent to museums, where they remain as the largest functional rockets ever built, permanently grounded.

Why the political momentum collapsed

The Kennedy speech of 25 May 1961 — “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” — was framed in terms of national capability and human aspiration, but the actual policy logic that funded it was strategic competition with the Soviet Union. The Soviets had launched Sputnik in 1957, put Yuri Gagarin into orbit in April 1961 (six weeks before Kennedy’s speech), and were widely perceived to be ahead of the United States in space capability. The Apollo programme was, in essential terms, a national project to recover technological prestige from a position of perceived inferiority. It was funded at scales that no comparable peacetime project before or since has matched — peaking at approximately 4.4 percent of the entire US federal budget in 1966.

The strategic logic for that funding evaporated essentially the moment Armstrong stepped off the lunar module ladder in July 1969. The Soviets, by 1969, had already effectively conceded the lunar race — their N1 super-heavy rocket failed in four successive test launches between 1969 and 1972, and the Soviet crewed lunar programme was wound down quietly. There was no longer any external competitor to beat. There was no longer any strategic prestige to be gained from continued lunar landings. And the public, which had supported Apollo as a Cold War project, had never developed the underlying enthusiasm for lunar exploration as a scientific or exploratory enterprise that would have been required to sustain funding in the absence of the Cold War rationale. Polls throughout the late 1960s consistently showed that a majority of Americans thought Apollo was not worth the cost, even at the peak of the programme’s popularity.

The internal NASA decisions

Per The Planetary Society’s analysis of how Nixon shaped the post-Apollo NASA, the popular blame placed on Nixon for ending Apollo is partially deserved but oversimplifies the institutional dynamics. NASA itself, under Administrator Thomas Paine, agreed to terminate Saturn V production and cancel later Apollo missions in order to free up budget for the post-Apollo programmes the agency wanted to pursue — an experimental space station that would become Skylab, and a reusable spacecraft that would become the Space Shuttle. The choice was framed within NASA as a redirection of resources from the now-completed lunar landing programme toward new objectives, rather than as an abandonment of human spaceflight. The institutional case for shutting down the Saturn V line was that it was no longer needed for the missions the agency intended to pursue, and that maintaining a manufacturing line for a rocket the agency was not going to use would have consumed budget that could be spent on the Shuttle.

That decision turned out to be one of the more consequential institutional choices of the post-Apollo era. The Shuttle programme that NASA selected as its successor to Apollo was, by every available assessment, a substantially less ambitious vehicle than what the Saturn V could have supported, while also being substantially more expensive per launch than Apollo had been. The Shuttle operated from 1981 to 2011, completed 135 missions, lost two crews and 14 astronauts in catastrophic accidents, and never carried humans beyond low Earth orbit. The capability that had allowed twelve men to walk on the Moon between 1969 and 1972 was, by the time the last Saturn V was sent to a museum in the mid-1970s, no longer institutionally sustainable. Restarting it would require essentially rebuilding the entire programme from scratch — which is what NASA’s Artemis programme has, in fact, been attempting to do for the past several years, at substantial cost and with substantial delays.

What “lost capability” actually means

As covered by AmericaSpace’s detailed history of the Apollo cancellations, the popular claim that humanity “lost the capability” to return to the Moon is partially true and partially misleading. The engineering knowledge from Apollo was documented and survives in archives, technical reports, and the institutional memory of the relatively small number of engineers from the era who are still alive. The capability that was lost is not the knowledge itself but the institutional infrastructure that supported it: the Saturn V manufacturing line, the supplier networks, the specialised workforce, the test facilities, and the political-economic configuration that allowed roughly 400,000 people working across NASA and its contractor network to be mobilised on a single objective with a national-priority budget. None of these things are recoverable in their original form. They have to be rebuilt, which is essentially what the Artemis programme is now doing, and which is partly why the rebuild has taken decades and substantially exceeded its original budget.

The deeper point is that the question “why has no one been back to the Moon in fifty-three years?” has the same answer as the question “why was anyone there in the first place?” The Apollo programme was a Cold War project that happened to produce, as a byproduct, the most ambitious feat of exploration in human history. When the Cold War rationale for the project ended, the project ended. The capability that had been built for the project was allowed to decay because the institutional reasons for maintaining it had decayed first. The current revival of crewed lunar exploration — through Artemis, through China’s parallel programme, through the commercial-spaceflight ecosystem that has emerged over the past decade — is taking place because new institutional reasons have emerged: geopolitical competition with China, commercial interest in lunar resources, scientific interest in the lunar south pole, and a renewed sense in several capitals that human presence beyond Earth orbit is strategically valuable. Whether the new reasons will sustain a sustained human presence on the Moon, or whether the next round of lunar landings will be followed by another half-century pause, depends on whether the institutional infrastructure being built now is durable enough to survive the eventual evaporation of whatever specific political momentum is currently funding it. The Apollo experience suggests that this is not a question to be answered with technological optimism.

The post The reason no human being has walked on the Moon in more than half a century is not that humanity lost the capability to get there — it is that humanity lost the reason, in the moment the Cold War goal of beating the Soviet Union to the lunar surface had finally been accomplished and the political momentum behind Apollo evaporated appeared first on Space Daily.

For the first forty years of human spaceflight, getting into space required being a professional astronaut or cosmonaut. The selection processes were intensely competitive, the training programmes took years, the candidates were chosen from elite military pilot or scientific backgrounds, and the small number of people who eventually made it through the filtering and onto a launch vehicle were essentially all employees of the few national space agencies that operated launch programmes. From 1961 through 2001, approximately 400 individuals went to space, every one of them a professional. The first paying civilian, the American businessman Dennis Tito, finally reached the International Space Station in April 2001 by purchasing a seat on a Russian Soyuz for approximately $20 million. Six more spaceflight participants followed over the next eight years, all via the same Russian-operated route. Then the door closed. From 2009 to 2021, no private citizen reached space at all. The institutional pipeline that had briefly opened during the Russian post-Soviet financial squeeze closed again as the ISS partnership stabilised.

According to a detailed industry flight log of every commercial space tourism mission to date, the reopening of that door in 2021 was not gradual but discontinuous. Within a single ten-week period — Richard Branson on Virgin Galactic’s VSS Unity on 11 July 2021, Jeff Bezos on Blue Origin’s New Shepard on 20 July 2021, and Jared Isaacman’s all-civilian Inspiration4 mission on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon in September 2021 — three different commercial providers began operating crewed flights for paying customers. The civilian-to-space pipeline that had been closed for twelve years suddenly had three independent operational paths. The cumulative number of private civilians flown to space, which had been seven for over a decade, began to climb rapidly. By the end of 2022 it had passed twenty. By the end of 2024 it had passed eighty. By early 2026 the figure had reached approximately 120, and despite Blue Origin’s January 2026 decision to pause New Shepard flights to focus on lunar missions, the underlying trajectory has continued.

The arithmetic of the shift

The total number of human beings who have left Earth’s atmosphere across the entire history of spaceflight is, by current estimates, approximately 700. NASA has contributed roughly 360 of these. The Soviet and subsequent Russian programmes have contributed approximately 135. The European Space Agency, JAXA in Japan, the Canadian Space Agency, the Chinese taikonaut programme, and several smaller national programmes account for most of the rest. The 120 commercial civilians who have flown since 2021 represent approximately 17 percent of this cumulative total — roughly one in six of every person who has ever crossed into space, all of them in the past five years, almost none of them with the professional training that defined every previous generation of spacefarer.

The rate dynamics are the more striking part. Per CBS News’s coverage of the broader commercial spaceflight phenomenon, the major national astronaut corps have been operating at roughly stable launch cadences for the past decade — NASA sends approximately 8 to 12 astronauts to the ISS per year, Roscosmos sends roughly 4 to 6 cosmonauts, the Chinese taikonaut programme launches a similar number to its Tiangong space station, and ESA contributes a handful through its partnership arrangements. The total professional astronaut launch rate sits at roughly 25 to 30 humans per year, and has been at this level for most of the post-Shuttle era. The commercial civilian launch rate, by contrast, was effectively zero from 2009 to 2021 and has been climbing rapidly since. Blue Origin’s New Shepard alone flew approximately 30 civilians across multiple missions in 2024-2025. Virgin Galactic flew another seven commercial missions before pausing operations in 2024 for an upgraded vehicle. SpaceX flew the Polaris Dawn mission (four civilians) in September 2024 and continues operating crewed Crew Dragon flights for paying customers. Multiple Axiom Space missions have carried paying civilians to the ISS. The total commercial civilian launch rate for 2024-2025 substantially exceeded the professional astronaut rate.

What civilian flights actually involve

The two halves of the commercial spaceflight industry — suborbital and orbital — are different enough that they are essentially separate products. Suborbital flights, operated by Blue Origin (New Shepard) and Virgin Galactic, briefly cross the boundary of space (the internationally recognised Kármán line at 100 kilometres altitude, or the US-recognised 80 kilometres) and return immediately. The full flight, from launch to landing, typically lasts about 10 to 12 minutes. Passengers experience approximately 3 to 6 minutes of weightlessness at apogee, see the curvature of Earth and the blackness of space through windows, and then re-enter and land. Ticket prices range from approximately $200,000 to $600,000 depending on operator. As reported by Mexico Business News’s industry overview, suborbital flights account for the substantial majority of commercial civilian spaceflights to date by passenger count.

Orbital flights are an entirely different proposition. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Axiom Space’s missions to the International Space Station place passengers into sustained low Earth orbit, with mission durations typically ranging from several days to several weeks. Ticket prices for orbital missions start at approximately $55 million and can exceed $200 million for chartered Crew Dragon flights. The 2024 Polaris Dawn mission, funded by Jared Isaacman and operated by SpaceX, reached an altitude of 1,400 kilometres — the highest crewed Earth orbit since the Apollo programme — and included the first commercial spacewalk in history. The orbital civilian flights are substantially rarer than suborbital ones (fewer than 20 total individuals to date) but represent the more technologically ambitious frontier of the commercial spaceflight industry.

What the trend means

As covered by a March 2026 Yahoo News analysis of Blue Origin’s decision to pause New Shepard operations, the commercial spaceflight industry is now mature enough that operational decisions by individual providers (Virgin Galactic pausing for vehicle upgrades, Blue Origin pausing to redirect engineering resources to lunar missions) substantially affect industry-wide launch cadence but do not threaten the basic existence of the category. Multiple additional providers are at various stages of operational development: Vast’s Haven-1, a single-module commercial space station, is targeted for launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 in May 2026, with the company aiming to become the world’s first standalone commercial space station operator; Sierra Space’s Dream Chaser spaceplane is in late-stage development; and Axiom Space’s commercial space station is intended to begin operations and eventually replace the ISS by 2030. Virgin Galactic’s Delta-class vehicle, designed for monthly commercial flights, is targeted to enter operations in late 2026.

The structural shift that the cumulative 120 commercial civilians represent is not yet visible at the level of cultural recognition. Most people, asked how many private citizens have been to space, would probably guess a number an order of magnitude lower. The transition from spaceflight as an exclusively professional activity to spaceflight as a commercial product purchasable by paying customers has, by every available indication, now happened — quietly, gradually, and faster than most observers anticipated. The next question is whether the trajectory continues. If the rate-acceleration of the past five years extends through the rest of the decade, the cumulative number of private civilians in space will, by 2030, substantially exceed the cumulative number of professional astronauts who flew across the entire 60-year history of spaceflight before commercial operations began. Whether that crossing point gets noticed at the time, or whether it gets registered only in retrospect like most of the structural shifts of the past several years, is a separate question. The numbers themselves are no longer particularly contestable.

The post Approximately 120 private civilians have now flown to space aboard commercial rockets — roughly one-sixth of all the human beings who have ever left Earth — and the rate at which citizens are reaching space is now accelerating faster than the rate at which national space programs are sending professional astronauts appeared first on Space Daily.

When Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore packed for their trip to the International Space Station in early June 2024, they packed for approximately a week. The mission profile was eight to ten days. The clothes they brought, the personal items they brought, the level of mental preparation they brought were all calibrated to a trip about the length of a tropical vacation. Two hundred and eighty-six days later — having lived aboard the ISS for the better part of a year, having become full members of two consecutive Expedition crews, having watched their original spacecraft return to Earth without them in September because NASA had concluded it was no longer safe to ride home in — they finally landed in the Gulf of Mexico aboard a SpaceX capsule on 18 March 2025. The eight-day mission had, by then, become the longest single accidental extension of a human spaceflight in NASA history, and the most public engineering crisis the Boeing Commercial Crew Program had yet encountered.

According to Space.com’s coverage of the Starliner thruster crisis, the immediate problems began as Starliner approached the ISS for docking on 6 June 2024. Five of the capsule’s 28 maneuvering thrusters, mounted on the service module, began misfiring or shutting down entirely. Helium leaks were detected in the propulsion system manifolds. The docking was eventually completed, but the underlying questions about the vehicle’s ability to safely undock from the station and execute the precise series of deorbit burns required to bring the astronauts home became, in subsequent weeks, increasingly serious. The original plan had assumed Starliner would carry Williams and Wilmore back to Earth within ten days of arrival. By late July 2024, NASA and Boeing engineers were still trying to determine whether the propulsion problems could be safely characterised, much less corrected. The astronauts remained aboard the ISS while ground engineers ran simulations.

The decision

The formal decision came on 24 August 2024. Per NASA’s official announcement of the uncrewed-return decision, the agency concluded that bringing Williams and Wilmore home aboard Starliner posed risks it was not willing to accept. The specific failure mode that worried engineers most concerned Teflon seals inside the thrusters that appeared to be degrading and bulging when the thrusters fired at high temperatures — a problem that could not be fully characterised because the service module containing the affected thrusters was scheduled to burn up during atmospheric reentry, eliminating the possibility of post-flight inspection. The agency’s administrator at the time, Bill Nelson, summarised the rationale: “Spaceflight is risky, even at its safest and most routine. A test flight, by nature, is neither safe, nor routine.” Starliner would return to Earth uncrewed. Williams and Wilmore would be folded into the ISS’s regular crew rotation and would eventually come home aboard a SpaceX vehicle.

Starliner undocked from the ISS on 6 September 2024, executed its deorbit burn successfully, and landed at White Sands, New Mexico — without crew, without serious incident, and without resolving any of the underlying engineering questions about whether it could have safely brought Williams and Wilmore home if it had been required to. Three weeks later, on 28 September 2024, a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule launched to the ISS carrying NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov. Two of the four seats were left intentionally empty, reserved for Williams and Wilmore’s eventual return. That return would not happen for another six months.

What the 286 days actually involved

The “stranded” framing that dominated media coverage of the situation became, over the subsequent months, a source of mild frustration for the astronauts themselves. Williams and Wilmore were not stranded in the literal sense. They were absorbed into the ISS’s standard crew rotation as members of Expedition 71 and then Expedition 72. They conducted scientific research. They performed maintenance on station systems. Williams became ISS commander in September 2024 and completed multiple spacewalks during her extended mission, including one that pushed her cumulative spacewalk time to a record for a female astronaut. Both Williams and Wilmore have repeatedly described their extended stay in terms that emphasise their professional engagement with the work rather than any sense of isolation or distress.

Williams’s total accumulated spaceflight time across her career, by the time of her March 2025 return, reached 608 days — the fourth-highest cumulative total of any NASA astronaut and the highest of any NASA woman. The 286-day mission itself sits comfortably within the range of routine modern ISS expeditions; Scott Kelly’s 340-day mission in 2015-2016 was longer, and Frank Rubio’s 371-day mission in 2022-2023 was longer still. The physiological recovery required upon return was substantial but within standard parameters for long-duration ISS missions. Bone density loss, muscle atrophy, cardiovascular deconditioning, and the cluster of vision-related changes documented in long-duration spaceflight all applied to both astronauts, but the rehabilitation protocols were well-established and the recovery proceeded along expected lines.

What the mission means for Boeing

The Starliner programme, by every available measure, is in substantial trouble. As reported by CNBC’s coverage of the March 2025 return, Boeing’s $4.2 billion Commercial Crew Program contract with NASA — signed in 2014, alongside a smaller $2.6 billion contract awarded to SpaceX — has now produced exactly one crewed flight that failed to return its crew aboard its own vehicle, after more than a decade of development delays, two uncrewed test flights (one of which also failed to reach the ISS), and multiple billion-dollar cost overruns absorbed by Boeing itself. SpaceX’s competing Crew Dragon, by contrast, has completed eleven operational crewed missions to the ISS since its first crewed flight in May 2020, has carried more than fifty astronauts safely to and from the station, and has now also rescued the two astronauts that Boeing’s vehicle was unable to return.

Whether Starliner ever flies humans again remains, as of mid-2026, an open question. As documented in NASA’s official return-announcement statement, the agency has not committed to a specific date for the next Starliner mission, crewed or uncrewed. The engineering questions about the service-module thrusters remain partially unresolved because the affected hardware no longer exists. Boeing has indicated that it intends to address the propulsion issues in subsequent vehicles and that it remains committed to the Commercial Crew Program. NASA, for its part, has indicated that it still wants a second commercial crew provider as a backup to SpaceX. Whether the second provider continues to be Boeing, and whether the next Starliner flight occurs in 2026, 2027, or later, will depend on technical, financial, and political decisions that the agency has not yet made publicly. The 286 days that Williams and Wilmore spent in orbit after their eight-day mission ended are, in this respect, a piece of operational evidence whose institutional consequences are still in the process of being worked out.

The post An eight-day mission to the International Space Station ended 286 days later in March 2025, when NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore finally returned aboard a SpaceX capsule — abandoning the Boeing Starliner they had arrived in after it developed thruster problems too serious to fly them home appeared first on Space Daily.

The record sits at the top of every list of human spaceflight endurance achievements, has been there since 1995, and is currently held by a man who has been dead for three years. Valeri Polyakov, born in Tula, Russia in 1942, trained as a medical doctor specialising in space medicine before joining the Soviet cosmonaut corps in 1972, and spent the better part of his subsequent career attempting to answer a single question with his own body: whether a human being could survive, biologically and psychologically, the round-trip duration of a flight to Mars. His first flight, in 1988-1989, lasted 240 days — at the time among the longest space missions ever attempted. His second flight, launched on 8 January 1994 aboard Soyuz TM-18, was specifically planned to extend beyond the projected duration of a Mars mission. He stayed in space for 437 days. He returned on 22 March 1995. No human being has stayed in space continuously for longer since.

According to Astronomy.com’s 2022 obituary of Polyakov following his death at age 80, the specific scientific purpose of the 437-day mission was Mars-mission validation. The transit time to Mars on a standard low-energy trajectory is approximately 7 to 9 months in each direction; combined with a surface stay of approximately 1 year (the typical “long-stay” mission profile), the total mission duration for a crewed Mars expedition would be approximately 14 to 18 months. Polyakov’s 437 days — slightly over 14 and a half months — covers the round-trip duration of the shortest plausible Mars mission profile. The Soviet (later Russian) space medicine community had been planning a Mars mission, in some form, since the 1960s; Polyakov’s flight was the medical proof-of-concept that the human body could endure the required time in microgravity.

What the mission actually required

Polyakov’s working environment for those 437 days was the Mir space station — a Soviet-era orbital outpost launched in 1986, roughly the size of a school bus, with a total internal working volume of approximately 350 cubic metres distributed across multiple modules connected by narrow passageways. By 1994, Mir was already eight years old and showing signs of wear. The cooling system was unreliable. The toilet had recurring problems. The communications systems were limited by the standards even of the time. Polyakov’s living conditions were substantially harsher than the conditions available to modern astronauts on the International Space Station, which has approximately three times the pressurised volume of Mir and substantially more comfortable accommodations across essentially every dimension. Polyakov adapted by establishing a strict daily routine: approximately two hours of mandatory exercise (a mix of treadmill running and resistance training), scientific work, medical self-experimentation, communications with ground controllers, and disciplined sleep schedules.

As reported by RocketSTEM’s coverage of the mission, Polyakov’s medical training proved decisive. He was, in essential respects, both the experimental subject and the experimenter. He documented in detail the physiological changes his body underwent over the 14-and-a-half months: bone density loss in weight-bearing skeletal regions at approximately 1 to 2 percent per month, muscle atrophy despite his exercise protocol, cardiovascular changes including some loss of cardiac muscle mass, and the cluster of vision-related changes that have since been named Spaceflight-Associated Neuro-ocular Syndrome. He tested countermeasures against these changes, refined the exercise protocols in real time, and produced the medical baseline against which all subsequent long-duration spaceflight has been measured.

The landing

The moment that became the iconic image of the mission was not the launch, not any specific event during the 14 months in orbit, but the landing itself. As described in Britannica’s biographical entry on Polyakov, when the Soyuz TM-20 capsule containing Polyakov touched down on the steppes of Kazakhstan on 22 March 1995, ground crews approached with stretchers, fully expecting that a man who had spent 14.5 months in microgravity would be unable to support his own weight. Polyakov refused the stretcher. He climbed out of the capsule on his own, walked the short distance to a nearby lawn chair, and sat down. The gesture was deliberate. He had spent the entire mission, and arguably his entire career, attempting to demonstrate that long-duration spaceflight did not necessarily produce a human being too physiologically broken to function on arrival. Walking himself from the capsule to the chair was the visible answer.

His first words to the assembled press, in Russian, translated to the equivalent of: “We can fly to Mars.” The statement was not a metaphor or an aspirational quote. It was a clinical assessment from a doctor who had just personally completed the experiment.

Why the record still stands

Per Space.com’s history of ultra-long-duration spaceflight, no human being has stayed in space continuously for as long as Polyakov did in any of the 31 years since his return. NASA’s Scott Kelly came within approximately three months, completing 340 days aboard the ISS in 2015-2016 as part of the agency’s “Year in Space” study. NASA’s Christina Koch reached 328 days in 2019-2020. NASA astronaut Frank Rubio set the American single-mission record at 371 days during an unplanned mission extension in 2022-2023. The current cumulative space-time record is held by the Russian cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko, who has accumulated approximately 1,110 days across five separate missions — but no individual mission of his, or any other cosmonaut’s, has exceeded Polyakov’s 437 consecutive days.

The reason the record has not been broken is not that humans cannot endure longer missions — Polyakov demonstrated that they can. It is that the modern crewed-spaceflight programmes have, for various operational, political, and risk-management reasons, settled on six-month rotations as the standard ISS expedition duration, with occasional yearlong missions conducted as specific scientific experiments. The radiation exposure accumulated during longer missions, in low Earth orbit, is substantial; over the full lifetime of a cosmonaut or astronaut, multiple yearlong missions are generally not considered medically advisable. Polyakov accepted this risk in 1994 because the mission was designed to deliver a specific scientific result that no shorter flight could provide. The result was delivered. The result has not been substantially improved upon since.

The peculiar feature of the current moment is that Polyakov’s mission was conducted to validate human Mars exploration, and 31 years later, no human being has yet flown to Mars. The medical baseline is in place. The proof of biological feasibility is on the books. The next step — actually sending a crew to Mars — has been planned, replanned, postponed, and refigured by multiple space agencies across three decades, with the leading current candidate (SpaceX’s Starship-based architecture) targeting the early 2030s. Whether the eventual crew on the first Mars mission will benefit directly from the data Polyakov collected, or whether the record-holder will quietly remain the holder of a piece of human endurance that was waiting for a use case that never materialised, is one of the open questions of the next decade. The 437 days are sitting on a shelf. The doctor who walked himself off the Soyuz in March 1995 is no longer alive to see whether they get used.

The post The longest continuous spaceflight in history — 437 days aboard the Russian Mir space station, completed by cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov in 1995 — was specifically conducted to prove that a human being could survive a round-trip mission to Mars, in a piece of human endurance that has been waiting unused on a shelf for three decades appeared first on Space Daily.

Future interstellar travelers who hope to reach distant star systems will likely need better propulsion technologies than the chemical rockets humans currently rely on for our exploration of space.

Among the range of proposed alternatives, one potential candidate involves what are called solar light sails, a theoretical propulsion system that relies on pressure generated from solar radiation against a large surface to move a spacecraft.

Such concepts have been proposed since the 1980s, some of which combine the idea of using sunlight as a power source with the implementation of lasers, which could propel such futuristic starships to speeds our best current technologies cannot attain.

However, not all spacecraft propulsion experts are necessarily sold on the idea of solar light sails just yet. According to new findings detailed in a paper by researchers Jiaze Li and Chao Shen of the Harbin Institute of Technology in China, this novel form of propulsion may have a few hurdles to cross before it can attain the near-light-speeds many experts had hoped for.

A Tale of Three Forces

According to Shen and Li’s recent research, a key problem arises once a solar light sail spacecraft begins nearing the speed of light: drag forces resulting from the very source of energy used to propel the devices could place significant limitations on their maximum attainable speeds.

A combination of different forces can be expected to occur as sunlight strikes a light sail, the authors say, which includes incident light, specular reflection, and diffuse scattering.

Incident light describes the physical momentum generated by light energy in the form of photons as they strike the sail, whereas specular reflection describes the momentum produced as photons reflect off the sail. Finally, diffuse scattering is a separate form of momentum generated by photons, which, rather than bouncing away upon impact, is actually absorbed by the sail, the energy from which is thereafter released in random directions.

New Limitations on Solar Light Sails

Based on these primary forces, the authors identify that once a light sail begins reaching relativistic speeds, it also becomes subjected to intense Doppler effect—the phenomenon that occurs as changes in the frequency of waves result as their source and an object or observer’s distance changes in relation to it.

In the case of solar light sails, the more the frequency of light waves striking the sail decreases, the less the amount of thrust generated by the three forces the paper identifies. In simpler terms, the faster a solar light sail spacecraft attempts to travel, the harder it becomes for it to accelerate.

Relativistic Light Aberration

At approximately 75% of the speed of light, the researchers say that an additional hindrance emerges, as what physicists call relativistic light aberration takes over. This phenomenon, first described by Einstein more than a century ago, involves relativistic corrections of light sources for observers who move at velocities approaching light speed.

In the case of our prospective future solar light sailors, this would mean that the weakest of the three forces impacting the sail (diffuse scattering) would begin to impose an active drag once the sail reaches approximately three-quarters of light speed. While the overall force of lasers helping to propel the light sail would remain positive at this stage in the system’s acceleration, the authors note an inevitable decline in efficiency.

The authors do concede that while their paper examines the radiative dynamics of solar light sail propulsion, it does not account for other factors that may include drag resulting from encounters with materials like gases, dust, or other physical sources (i.e., non-radiative sources), which could also impact overall speeds.

Additional factors worthy of consideration, but which the authors do not directly address in their paper, include the melting point of any materials used for solar light sail propulsion, which could be heated to extreme temperatures due to combined exposure to solar radiation, laser energy, and friction from movement.

Fundamentally, the team reports that their paper “provides a rigorous and in-depth theoretical foundation for lightsail dynamics,” which illustrates that while this future propulsion concept has its merits, we may still be far from seeing its realization for practical space travel.

By outlining the factors that contribute to constraints on light sail propulsion, Li and Shen aim to improve our overall understanding of this prospective future technology, thereby helping engineers to realize its potential for use in space exploration at some point in the future.

The team’s paper, “Relativistic Lightsail Propulsion Dynamics,” appeared on the preprint arXiv.org server.

Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached at micah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.