Boeing Starliner return, Falcon 9 grounded, and Starbase Watergate

New UFO footage! Researchers film numerous UAP off the coast of Long Is...

SpaceX’s Starship Transformation: Many Changes are Coming!

Oumuamua Update! We now know the first Interstellar UFO had an Alien or...

Starship Update! FAA breaks its silence on SpaceX wastewater dumping al...

Something was missing from Blue Origin Suborbital Spaceflight...

We now know what sabotaged the first NASA Moon lander in 50 years! The ...

SpaceX booster does NOT stick landing, new FAA Investigation

Polaris Dawn Preview! SpaceX launches the most dangerous private space ...

If you thought NASA SLS was a nightmare, wait until you see this! PLUS,...

Humans Went The Fastest Of All Time In The Apollo 10 Mission

Apollo 10 achieved the fastest speed humans have ever traveled. Home Science & Industry Facts Copy Twitter Share to Facebook Apollo 10 mission crew Despite being described as a “dress rehearsal” for the first moon landing, which took place just two months later, Apollo 10 achieved something incredible in its own right: the fastest speed that humans have ever traveled. Astronauts Thomas Stafford, John Young, and Eugene Cernan reached a speed of 24,816 mph while returning from their eight-day voyage on May 26, 1969, a record that not even subsequent Apollo missions managed to top. Before doing so, Stafford and Cernan boarded the Apollo lunar module and orbited our only natural satellite at a distance of about 9 miles from its surface. Young later walked on the moon as part of the Apollo 16 mission, and Cernan did so with Apollo 17. Advertisement Other speed records, while impressive, don’t even come close to Apollo 10. The land speed record, set in 1997 by a 54-foot Thrust SuperSonic Car, is 763 mph, while a diving peregrine falcon can reach speeds of 200 mph — making it the world’s fastest animal. The average commercial airliner travels at a speed of 550-600 mph, which is the fastest most of us will ever go. Unless you have an intense need for speed, that’s probably a good thing.

SpaceX's audacious bet on Polaris Dawn

A Part Of The Wright Flyer Went To The Moon

Parts from the original Wright Flyer have been to space. Home Science & Industry Facts Copy Share to email Twitter Share to Facebook Wright Flyer, 1903 On December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, aviators Orville and Wilbur Wright achieved the world’s first motor-powered airplane flight. On that historic flight, the Wright brothers’ aircraft, the Wright Flyer, reached an altitude of just 8 feet and traveled a distance of 120 feet. Little did anyone know that just 66 years later, parts of that very same plane would travel much higher and much farther — all the way to the moon. Advertisement When astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first person to walk on the moon on July 20, 1969, he brought with him two fragments from the original Wright Flyer: a 1.25-square-inch piece of muslin fabric cut from the aircraft’s left wing, and a piece of spruce wood taken from the left propeller. Armstrong carried the pieces inside his “personal preference kit,” a small bag of personal items that each of the Apollo 11 astronauts was allowed to bring with them into the lunar module for their journey. But Armstrong wasn’t content to simply treat the Wright Flyer artifacts as carry-on luggage — he placed the fabric and wood inside a pocket of his space suit and walked with them on the lunar surface. In this way, Armstrong was able to pay tribute to the Wright brothers, whose pioneering work ushered in the age of aviation that made the Apollo 11 mission possible.

Police film cylindrical UFO that resembles objects spotted by NASA over ...

Amazing transparency! RFA reveals all the details of the Saxavord explo...

Polaris Dawn astronauts to attempt historic first commercial spacewalk, ...

China will build a Super-Weapon on the Moon! Can NASA stop them?

NASA's Decision on the Fate of Starliner

"Sign Here"-A Great Science Fiction Film

Let us start the weekend off with my enthusiastic recommendation for a movie. Yesterday, I watched a Mexican science fiction film titled "Sign Here." For those of you curious, here is a link to the film: https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0BZY9LS1P/ref=atv_dl_rdr?deepLinkingRedirect=1&autoplay=1 This film lacks what we normally see in a science fiction film-computer graphics, A.I. enhancements, and elaborate sets. There are no big names in the cast. What the low-budget film does have is superb dubbing from Spanish to English as well as brilliant cinematography, script writing, directing, and acting. It is a treat for the eyes and the ears as well as the heart. The film is set in the near future. It follows the lives of two thirty-something people named Roque and Fran. In this world, a computer matches people to become domestic partners. (Elena believes this is the wave of the future.) The system lets a partnership between two people last 4 years. Then they are paired with another partner for the next 4 years. Fran and Roque are paired after coming out of other relationships that were less than perfect. Then something totally unexpected happens. They fall madly in love. They have an elaborate wedding before their 4 years together expire. It appears that they will live happily ever after. Then some turbulence develops, and they start to doubt their commitment to each other. The movie has a subtle and happy ending that sneaks up on you quite unexpectedly. You will spend an hour and a half with your eyes glued to the screen. You will be entertained. You will laugh. If you are romantic at heart, you will get a tear or so in the eyes. This is a rare treat. You can find it on Amazon videos and other platforms.

SpaceX Unveils Surprising New Starship Upgrade, and preps for Booster Ca...

Angry Astronaut and I get Angry About Space!

What's REALLY going on with Starship Flight 5?

The New Moon Race: Assessing Chinese and U.S. Strategies

Artemis 1 Orion International partnerships, illustrated by the NASA and ESA logos on the Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft, can give the US-led Artemis effort an edge over China. (credit: NASA) The new Moon race: Assessing Chinese and US strategies by James Clay Moltz Monday, August 19, 2024 Bookmark and Share China’s recent advances in cislunar space have spurred US fears. As a report by an influential defense think tank argues, “The contest over cislunar space could dominate the course and outcome of terrestrial conflict as well as control of the Earth-Moon system.” Analysts in influential US military journals have argued that China is “racing ahead” and point to China’s ambitious (and seemingly inevitable) plans to be the first to mine the Moon’s regolith for water ice and rare helium-3, while establishing a so-called International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) by 2035. With slipping deadlines for certain missions and technologies critical to the US-led Artemis Program, many experts and even some officials seem to believe that the United States is losing this important race for 21st-century space power. What factors will matter most for success in cislunar space and who has the advantage? China indeed has some early momentum, given its greater number of recent lunar missions than NASA. Some fear it will seize first-mover advantage on the Moon, possibly acing out US-led missions to stake out critical regions like the lunar poles and their valuable reserves of water ice. As NASA Administrator Bill Nelson warned in a recent NPR interview, if Chinese taikonauts arrive at the lunar South Pole before US astronauts they are likely to set up operations and tell others “this is ours, you stay out.” Such concerns about the United States lagging have only increased since China’s success in late June in becoming the first country to carry out a sample return mission from the far side of the Moon. Given this debate and its relevance to US national security, it is worthwhile to examine some of these arguments to assess their accuracy. What factors will matter most for success in cislunar space and who has the advantage? Starting with Cold War lunar strategies as a baseline, this essay analyzes current Chinese and US cislunar strategies and tries to answer the basic question: which one has a better chance of establishing a cislunar leadership and then sustaining that role? A brief look back… and forward The US-Soviet Moon race featured government-funded, highly nationalistic, and state-run efforts to be the first to land humans on the Moon. Thanks to strong Congressional support, impressive technology, brave astronauts, and some critical mistakes on the Soviet side, NASA prevailed in this highly symbolic and influential competition, reaping tremendous international respect and soft power. Management of the Apollo program was a top-down, government-led effort. Innovation came from contractors building technologies under specifications supplied by NASA. But it cost 4% of the federal budget at the height of the Apollo program to do that. Unfortunately, those days are not coming back. In the face of tight Congressional budgets, bureaucratic slowness, and rising threats, the 2010 National Space Policy proposed a new strategy, which outlined goals of enhanced engagement with the commercial sector and with space-capable allies. After nearly 15 years of establishing the mechanisms for these relationships, this new “networked” strategy is now being put to the test in the Artemis Program. Meanwhile, China is relying on the state-run, Cold War model for managing its cislunar program. Why? Because Xi Jinping’s government insists—for political reasons—on controlling the direction of its space enterprises, their technology, and their data. Such a highly autonomous and nationalistic strategy can work when budgets are flush. But it doesn’t fare so well when one’s economy flattens or begins to decline. Governmental controls can also slow innovation. The new US strategy has largely abandoned old, cost-plus contracting and focuses increasingly on fixed-price contracts for services, letting commercial companies do what they do best: build, operate, and update their technologies. This new approach has thus far yielded both cislunar failures (Astrobotics) and successes (Intuitive Machines). But critics of the new approach are not convinced it will work. Former NASA administrator Michael Griffin stated in Congressional testimony in January 2024 that the United States should abandon its plans to use complex and untested SpaceX and Blue Origin technologies for landing on the Moon, and instead focus on what he called a more reliable route of using government-run programs and assets. The problem, though, is that the SLS launcher costs $4 billion a flight and the average NASA mission takes years to plan and requires hundreds of millions of dollars. The United States is unlikely to be able to afford that approach. The good news is that there are now new options for countries able to attract partners. A 21st century strategy for cislunar space Partnering with the commercial sector means that certain spacecraft may not be as well-tested or well-funded as government missions. As a result, they may be more likely to fail. But failure can be good. It allows countries to learn things, and then to try again with that new knowledge. Using cheaper and more frequent commercial missions to work out some of these bugs allows NASA to focus on bigger missions, while still making progress. Working with the commercial sector means taking some additional risks, such as relying on SpaceX’s and Blue Origin to transfer astronauts from NASA’s Orion capsule to the lunar surface. But these two companies have every incentive to develop safe procedures and reliable technologies. Notably, SpaceX has a perfect record thus far with its Crew Dragon flights to the International Space Station. The Artemis Accords are shaping the narrative in the United States’ favor at the international level. A second set of potential partners involves US allies. During the first Moon race, foreign governments mattered only as locations for ground stations or emergency landing sites. No foreign technologies played a significant role in any of the Apollo missions to the Moon. This time, their contributions are going to be very different. Forty-two countries have joined the US in Artemis Accords so far, subscribing to a set of voluntary principles, with many offering important technological and financial support. International contributions to Artemis Unlike with the design of the International Space Station, US allies are now providing “critical path” technologies to the Artemis effort. Japan is building life support equipment and a cargo supply vehicle for the Lunar Gateway and a pressurized rover for lunar surface operations. Two Japanese astronauts will also land on the Moon. The European Space Agency (ESA) is providing the Orion Service Module to carry the crewed capsule from the SLS into lunar orbit, and the European Large Logistics Lander will deliver cargo for the planned lunar base. Three ESA astronauts will fly on early Artemis missions. Canada is supplying a robotic arm for use by the Gateway, and the United Arab Emirates will build an airlock for it. Finally, India, South Korea, and several other countries are funding technologies and missions in support of Artemis. Just as importantly, the Artemis Accords are shaping the narrative in the United States’ favor at the international level. It’s building a growing coalition of countries that support cislunar cooperation, transparency, and peaceful development. While many principles and procedures need to be further developed, such as how conflicts over proposed “safety zones” for mining operations will be settled, the member states have already begun regular meetings to discuss these issues. This is how international norms are developed. By contrast, recent Chinese and Russian behavior seeking to block efforts at the United Nations to halt kinetic anti-satellite testing and even to reaffirm long-standing principles from the Outer Space Treaty prohibiting the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit have increased international skepticism of Beijing’s and Moscow’s intentions in space. This is a public relations battle that China and Russia are losing. The evidence can be seen in the almost complete absence of international support for the ILRS among major spacefaring nations and the lack of major financial or technological contributions. China and Russian cooperation: Mind the gap The one exception is Russia. Moscow recently mentioned that it might contribute a nuclear power reactor for the ILRS. But funding for that expensive project in the mid-2030s remains far from clear. The Roscosmos budget has plummeted in the face of Ukraine war expenses. Notably, Roscosmos director-general Yuri Borisov complained in an interview last year (RIA Novosti, February 10, 2023) about his concern that Beijing will exploit Moscow’s space know-how for the ILRS but leave it “without contracts.” In other words, Russia is expecting China to pay for its participation. But Beijing’s list of missions now only includes Chinese spacecraft. The limits of this cooperation are highlighted by Borisov’s admission that the two sides have not even discussed including Russian cosmonauts in future ILRS missions. Meanwhile, no other Chinese ILRS partners have the capacity to provide significant funding or technologies. This means that—despite the “international” name—the ILRS is going to be a Chinese-dominated affair and that Beijing will likely be on the hook to pay for everything. As with its Belt and Road Initiative, that approach worked fine when the Chinese economy was booming. But it will force increasingly difficult tradeoffs when military and economic needs on Earth begin to conflict with the high costs of cislunar space. The ILRS is going to be a Chinese-dominated affair and Beijing will likely be on the hook to pay for everything. Trying to copy US success, China recently announced that commercial companies will be involved in the ILRS. The government has for some time been pumping money into commercial space incubators. But the bulk of these small startups are run by former state officials, and President Xi Jinping’s increasingly authoritarian rules also require entrepreneurs to share technology and information with the Chinese state. Without greater freedoms and financial protections, innovation is likely to suffer, particularly if the state budget falls on hard times. A possibly more serious problem is how China is going to launch all the payloads it will need to deliver to sustain its cislunar operations. In the coming few years, a critical Chinese requirement is going to be launching thousands of communications satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO) to populate its answer to Starlink. China’s current Long March 5 rocket can carry 25,000 kilograms into LEO, but it is not reusable. This is going to create difficult tradeoffs. For Artemis missions, besides the reusable Falcon 9, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy can lift up to 63,800 kilograms to LEO, and NASA’s SLS Block 1 can lift 95,000 kilograms. India, France, and Japan can also launch missions to the Moon. On the horizon, Blue Origin’s New Glenn will be an option, and SpaceX’s Starship will carry at least 100 metric tons, and both will be reusable. These concerns forced Beijing last year to redesign its planned heavy-lift Long March 9 booster to make it reusable and reduce costs. But this rocket—a key to China’s lunar program—won’t be ready until the mid-2030s. Some legitimate concerns for the future Despite the advantages of the new US strategy, there are admittedly some risks. A string of commercial mission failures, Congressional stinginess in providing funding, or unexpected technological glitches in the lunar landers, rovers, or regolith-use systems for oxygen, water, and construction could slow Artemis down. The United States faces upcoming gaps in next-generation lunar space situational awareness, communications, and lunar observation systems. This means that building the kind of infrastructure called for in the US National Cislunar Science & Technology Strategy should be a high priority. Finally, economic hardships or political feuds with allies and partners in the program could create capability gaps or other delays. But China faces even more challenging odds as it seeks to build and sustain its cislunar infrastructure largely on its own. This is also not a recipe for cislunar leadership. Despite the current narrative of China’s “lead” in the new Moon race, the United States should not panic. We should stay the course. In sum, the competition to return to the Moon is accelerating and now involves an increasing number of countries and companies. Fortunately, the evidence so far is that the United States is building a more powerful and enduring coalition for sharing costs and pooling capabilities, which should serve it better than China’s largely self-contained and self-funded program. Despite the current narrative of China’s “lead” in the new Moon race, the United States should not panic. We should stay the course. By funding NASA at reliable levels, partnering with the commercial sector, and cooperating with our space-capable allies, we can succeed in building sustainable cislunar leadership. James Clay Moltz is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of Crowded Orbits: Conflict and Cooperation in Space (2024), The Politics of Space Security (2019), and Asia’s Space Race (2012).

An Alternate Mars Sample Return Mission

Mars Sample Return illustration NASA’s existing architecture for Mars Sample Return is facing cost and schedule pressures, leading for some to argue for a radical rethink of the program. (credit: NASA) An alternative Mars Sample Return program by Dale Skran Monday, August 19, 2024 Bookmark and Share There have been many reports in the news lately about the growth of the Mars Sample Return (MSR) budget in publications like Science and SpaceNews, with widespread fear that either the ballooning MSR budget eviscerates the other NASA planetary programs, or that MSR will eventually be cancelled and the money transferred to Artemis. This situation has resulted in a number of re-dos of the MSR architecture, which appear to have done little to lower costs or create improved results. More recently, NASA has initiated a series of layoffs at JPL that mainly impact MSR, apparently in anticipation of significant budget cuts, leading to further alarm among supporters of space exploration. NASA recently solicited industry input on alternative approaches to MSR under the title “Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return,” selecting several companies in June for short mission concept studies. As currently envisioned, MSR does little to advance Mars exploration in the long run, and by sucking up a lot of budget and energy may arguably wreak havoc on the rest of the NASA robotic exploration program. An obvious alternative is to re-invent MSR as the first step toward landing humans on Mars rather than as a one-shot effort consisting of technology that is unlikely to benefit a human mission to the surface of Mars. As currently envisioned, MSR does little to advance Mars exploration in the long run, and by sucking up a lot of budget and energy may arguably wreak havoc on the rest of the NASA robotic exploration program. There is an elephant in the room: the SpaceX Mars architecture built around Starship/Super Heavy. Despite having partially bought into this approach in the Artemis program for usage as a Moon lander, NASA remains deep in “trade study hell”[1] when it comes to going to Mars. A significant tug-of-war appears to exist between those who insist a nuclear rocket is required for going to Mars with humans, and others, which include SpaceX, who favor the use of in-space refueling of chemical rockets. A more recent NASA trade study[2] concludes that “…the high ∆V required for fast Mars missions with short stay times drives the need for nuclear propulsion technology… past studies have shown that non-nuclear options require extremely aggressive technologies and concepts of operations to close a fast Mars mission. An apples-to-apples all-chemical ConOps is not likely to be viable.” This study recommends chemically boosted nuclear-electric as the preferred solution over nuclear thermal propulsion. They likely are correct, but by focusing on short stay times on Mars with fast mission profiles, they exclude SpaceX’s Mars architecture from serious consideration, as well as all technologies such as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) that lower costs over time and support a sustainable human presence on Mars. NASA has traditionally created expendable, mission-specific, self-limited, bespoke equipment for human exploration. Perhaps it is time for a new approach. Given that NASA is already committed to making Starship/Super Heavy work as a lunar landing system, the logical next step would be to build on that experience and re-use the basic structure to land on Mars. What better way to test out that architecture than by using it for Mars Sample Return? So, let us put on our “visioneering” hats and look at how MSR might look like if built around Starship. We would need more tanker flights than for a Moon trip, and since a fully refueled Starship has been designed to land on Mars, this seems like a good starting point. The next question is how we get the Starship off the surface of Mars and back to the Earth. Using ISRU to create fuel on Mars is probably a bridge too far for the near term, so fuel could be pre-positioned on Mars to power the return to Earth. Alternatively, refueling could be conducted in Mars orbit, both prior to the landing and after the landing to prepare for Earth departure. Either approach requires a significant number of fuel tankers heading to Mars, as well as highly reliable and effective cryocoolers and transfer/pumping equipment. The final required component of the system is a means to collect the samples and put them in the return vehicle. Here is a chance for NASA to shine: multiple helicopters could be used to collect samples and return them to the Starship via a large door. This approach avoids the need for ramps, elevators, or hoists. It also creates flexibility, as the helicopters might travel a considerable distance to pick up samples. Also, there should be several helicopters for redundancy. This entire program will almost certainly cost more than the $8–11 billion likely to be spent on the current MSR plan. However, it will also retire much of the risk involved in sending humans to Mars. In this scenario, the fuel tankers are the test flights. They will continue to be sent until there is enough fuel on or around Mars for the return journey. Some of these landings will fail, but eventually success will be achieved. The resulting Starship will be capable of reliably landing on Mars and storing fuel for many years; both are key technologies needed to send humans on the Red Planet and return them to Earth. Now comes the moment of truth: the return Starship with the samples. Let’s say that the first one crashes. No harm done—it will be attempted again, and again, until it succeeds. The samples can be returned in tranches to ensure that at least some of them make it all the way back to the Earth. The return to Earth may be further simplified by skipping a terrestrial landing and substituting docking with a space station in Earth orbit or the Gateway in a halo orbit around the Moon. Perhaps the safest way to initially quarantine samples would be on a space station, with a later return to Earth in a highly reliable cargo vehicle. This entire program will almost certainly cost more than the $8–11 billion likely to be spent on the current MSR plan. However, it will also retire much of the risk involved in sending humans to Mars. The remaining components required to send crews to Mars include ISRU on Mars to locally produce fuel for the return trip and the environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) to keep the astronauts alive on a long voyage. With the pre-positioning of fuel on Mars or Mars orbit and refueling already perfected, the ISRU production of fuel might be skipped on the first crewed trip. These are not small things, but they are incremental to a Starship-based MSR plan. Also, the Mars trip ECLSS will be based on decades of ISS work, the Gateway ECLSS system, and the ECLSS built to allow Starship to land crews on the Moon. Additionally, there is the possibility that SpaceX will create a “space station” version of Starship with long-term ECLSS capability as a free-standing commercial entity. What is on the table here is the potential for lowering the overall cost of sending humans to Mars while reducing risk substantially via extensive testing. The main challenge this plan will have to surmount lies in accepting that a significant number of Starships are going to be landing on Mars, with some of them crashing. There has been a good bit of discussion of what might be involved in “sterilizing” a Starship to meet the current super-stringent planetary protection rules. Among the many issues is that hundreds of tons of methane fuel would need to be “sterile”, something which strains credulity. There is going to have to be a major re-think on planetary protection for any humans-to-Mars program, but using Starship to support MSR would pull that debate forward in time. Although in theory there is some risk of contamination in landing humans (or Starships) on Mars, it is also possible that we will never find life on Mars with the current program of a robot every few years. What may be needed to find life on Mars is a massive, intensive program of exploration that involves large amounts of drilling and extensive robotic exploration of hard to access locations. Such a program targeting dozens of locations all over Mars requires hundreds of tons of equipment, regular resupply, and may be best managed from a crewed base on Mars. So, let’s deal a new deck of cards, abandon the current MSR architecture, and focus MSR on using Starship. The ability of Starship to land on a large planet has already been more extensively demonstrated (that is, a Starship has landed on the Earth) than any of the proposed MSR hardware, which exists only in PowerPoint slides. And the current NASA Artemis plan of record assumes rapid progress in Starship development, including multiple Moon landings. Dale Skran is a serial entrepreneur and past ITU-T Rapporteur, as well as a Bell Labs alum. He currently serves as the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the National Space Society. This article is his view, and not an official position of the NSS.

Craziest SpaceX mission in less than a week, Polaris Dawn

EXCLUSIVE post-explosion content! Why RFA and Saxavord will bounce back...

Polaris Dawn Mission Overview Briefing

Planetary Society Interview With Dr. Rosaly Lopes

https://www.planetary.org/video/planetary-scientist-rosaly-lopes-on-planetary-people

Disaster! NASA's Shocking NEW Discovery on Boeing's SLS...While Starline...

Did NASA detect a UFO Antimatter Drive near the ISS? Here's why it's th...

First Look Inside Blue Origin's New Glenn Factory w/ Jeff Bezos!

The most ignorant Elon Musk hater ever! Is the media trying to stop Sta...

The biggest news this week wasn't SpaceX or Blue Origin! It was Sierra ...

This is SpaceX's Boldest Starship Test Yet: The Countdown Begins!

Sierra Space may buy United Launch Alliance

SpaceX launch increase on hold, Starship Flight 5 will go BOOM

Sulfur Is Discovered On Mars

Serendipity and Sulfur Clumsiness can sometimes lead to great things. As NASA’s Curiosity rover was exploring Gediz Vallis, a channel carved into Mars’ Mount Sharp, it accidentally rolled over and cracked open a rock that contained yellowish-green crystals. Scientists established the rover had found pure sulfur – a first-ever on the Red Planet. They also identified a plain with similar rocks, potentially making for a sulfur-rich area. “Finding a field of stones made of pure sulfur is like finding an oasis in the desert,” said NASA’s Ashwin Vasavada. “It shouldn’t be there, so now we have to explain it.” Since October 2023, Curiosity has explored a region of Mars where it discovered sulfates, a kind of salt that contains sulfur mixed with other elements. Researchers have yet to determine whether the pure sulfur the rover found has any links with the sulfates. “No one had pure sulfur on their bingo card,” Vasavada told CNN. The place where Curiosity found the rock matters, too. Gediz Vallis is a groove that was likely created around 3 billion years ago by a mix of flowing water and debris. “Pure elemental sulfur is a very weird finding because on Earth, we mostly find it in places like hydrothermal vents. Think Yellowstone!” said Briony Horgan from Purdue University. The past existence of steam vents on Mars was proven a few years ago when NASA’s Spirit rover accidentally found pure silica – by means of having dragged along a broken wheel which revealed white soil. The pure sulfur discovery adds to a body of knowledge aimed at helping scientists understand whether Mars once had a habitable environment. Curiosity, which has been roaming around Mars since 2012, is now driving around Mount Sharp rather than up, in search of new surprises.

What are Solar System distances REALLY like? Hike the Planetary Trail a...

The Planetary Society's Matt Kaplan Interviews Dr. Rosaly Lopes

One of our readers, Dr. Rosaly Lopes, was interviewed last night by Matt Kaplan of the Planetary Society. Rosaly is a world-renowned planetary scientist. Her C.V. ( resume) is some 31 pages long. It includes the papers that she has written, the books that she has written (We have several of her books in our library.), her awards including an Emmy Award, and her other achievements like discovering 71 volcanoes on various planets and moons in the solar system. I regret that there is not a Nobel Prize for planetary scientists. I do not doubt that Rosaly would be a Nobel laureate had such an award existed for scientists in her category. Rosaly began her life in a city that I deeply love-Rio de Janeiro. She was fascinated by the Apollo program. She dreamed of being an astronaut. There were no women astronauts. Then she found the woman who inspired her to pursue a career in space exploration. This lady was NASA worker Poppy Northcott who was right in Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center when all the Apollo missions took place. She was able to meet Poppy many years later: Mat Kaplan, Poppy Northcutt and Rosaly Lopes Mat Kaplan, Poppy Northcutt and Rosaly Lopes Mat Kaplan, Poppy Northcutt and Rosaly Lopes Mat Kaplan, former Apollo Mission Control engineer Poppy Northcutt, and JPL planetary scientist Rosaly Lopes after their conversation at the California Science Center.

Flying with SpaceX astronaut Doug Hurley

Latest on Boeing's Starliner: STILL No Decision on Return

Starliner - The Final Verdict?

SpaceX Will Send Humans To Polar Orbit!

A New Ocean Found Under The Suraface Of Mars

New Mars study suggests an ocean’s worth of water may be hiding beneath the red dusty surface Left Center Right Bias Comparison New findings from NASA's Mars InSight lander detected over 1,300 marsquakes, providing evidence of water beneath Mars' surface. The water is thought to be located seven to 12 miles down and likely seeped from the surface billions of years ago, according to Vashan Wright. If representative, this underground water could potentially fill a global ocean to a depth of one to two kilometers, scientists suggest. Insights by Ground AI Does this summary seem wrong? 122 Articles All Left 22 Center 58 Right 10 Firstpost News Firstpost News Lean Right Mixed Factuality Individual: Mukesh Ambani Liquid water found on Mars: Does this mean there could be life on the Red Planet? A first-of-its-kind discovery suggests that there is ocean-worth of liquid water on Mars, deep in the planet's outer crust. The new study paves the way for further research into the habitability of Mars and the search for life beyond Earth 3 hours ago · Mumbai, India Read Full Article Welt Welt Lean Right High Factuality Private Equity: Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Mars: Researchers find gigantic water masses on the red planet Traces of rivers, lakes and an ocean previously indicated that Mars was covered with water billions of years ago. Where it might have flowed off to was previously unclear. US researchers have now discovered a huge water reservoir deep down. 4 hours ago · D O, Germany Read Full Article Al Jazeera Al Jazeera Lean Left High Factuality Government: Qatar New study suggests ocean of water lies beneath Mars’s surface The findings follow analysis of seismic readings from NASA’s Mars InSight lander before it shut down in 2022. 7 hours ago · Qatar Read Full Article 読売新聞オンライン 読売新聞オンライン Lean Right High Factuality New Mars Study Suggests an Ocean’s Worth of Water may be Hiding beneath the Red Dusty Surface CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Mars may be drenched beneath its surface, with enough water hiding in the cracks of underground rocks to form a global ocean, new research suggests. 7 hours ago · Japan Read Full Article GMA Filipino News GMA Filipino News Lean Left Mixed Factuality Media Conglomerate: GMA Network (Company) An ocean's worth of water may be underneath Mars' surface The study looked at data collected by the Mars InSigh lander from 2018 to 2022. 7 hours ago · Q C, Philippines Read Full Article Manila Bulletin Manila Bulletin Lean Left Mixed Factuality Corporation: Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation New Mars study suggests an ocean's worth of water may be hiding beneath its surface This image provided by NASA shows the InSight Mars lander in a selfie photo composite on April 24, 2022, the 1,211th Martian day, or sol, of the mission. (NASA/JPL-Caltech via AP, File) CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Mars may be drenched beneath its surface, with enough water hiding in the cracks of underground rocks to form a global ocean, new research suggests.The findings released Monday are based on seismic measurements from NASA's Mars InSight… 8 hours ago Read Full Article More articles Coverage Details Total News Sources 122 Leaning Left 22 Leaning Right 10 Center 58 Last Updated 3 hours ago Bias Distribution 64% Center Bias Distribution 64% of the sources are Center L 24% C 64% 11% The Independent NDTV Associated Press News abc News CNN Metro News+17 BBC News KIFI KRDO South China Morning Post Channel News Asia KVIA+53 Evening Standard The Straits Times Boston Herald ABS-CBN 読売新聞オンライン El Mundo+3 The Sun Fox News Untracked bias Globo Shropshire Star ZN.UA Зеркало недели www.larazon.es PerthNow My Mother Lode IOL Portugal TUOI TRE ONLINE Dnevni list Danas www.dnoticias.pt +23 Factuality 83% of the sources are High Factuality 83% High Ownership 7% of the sources are Independent News Krem2 News broke the news in Spokane, United States 22 hours ago on Monday, August 12, 2024. Sources are mostly out of United States (59) Similar News Topics InSight InSight NASA NASA Space Space Tech Tech Science Science United States United States Show All News Home Page Local News Blindspot Feed International Covid-19 US Elections International North America South America Europe Asia Australia Africa Tren

Earth attacked! Killers From Space (Sci-Fi, 1954) Colorized | Full Movie...

Why is Angry heading to Cape Canaveral to cover a SpaceX launch next month?

What Do Stuck Astronauts Say About America's Space Program?

Another Chinese rocket explodes in orbit! Space debris problem critical...

NASA Insider on Boeing Starliner: "No One Considered This"

Raptor 3 Fires Up, New Glenn Tests at Port & Starliner's Latest Update |...

Boeing is doing a worse job with SLS than it is with Starliner!! The la...

What SpaceX Just Revealed is a Massive Breakthrough

NASA made another critical mistake! Will they dump Lunar Starship or th...

Mars Colony vs Space Colony - Does Jeff Bezos have a better plan than El...

Boeing hires new CEO, Starliner FUD vs Fact

NASA has been hiding a shocking secret about Starliner! How did this ha...

Boeing's Starliner *CANNOT* return home without crew

One year on MARS?! Interviewing CHAPEA crewmember, Nathan Jones

Another SpaceX payload may be in trouble! NASA Cygnus resupply ship gli...

WOW!! RFA static fire shakes Saxavord, and I see it from less than a mi...

Starliner: 58 days in space

Life on Venus too? The latest NASA data leads to an incredible discovery!

Boeing Starliner is OVER!...NASA Says Something Weird Happening On Starl...