THEY DID IT! SpaceX Achieves Static Fire from Orbital Launch Mount

INDEPENDENCE DAY 3 When Planets Collide

6 Underrated Sci Fi Shows That Got Canceled Way Too Soon

JUST LAUNCHED! Tesla Model Q Below $20K – Full Autonomy Included?

🚨 BREAKING: Tesla Pi Phone KILLS iPhone Forever! Elon Musk's 2025 Smartp...

10 Most Underrated Space Adventure Movies - Why Did No One Watch These?

Elon Musk REVEALS SpaceX Starship Flight 10 Launch Timeframe!

Building Large Beams For Space With Composite Materials

beam builder In the late 1970s, General Dynamics conducted a detailed study of technology to manufacture beams made out of composite materials in space. Although the company did not build demonstration hardware, it did consider how the manufacturing would be tested using a Space Shuttle in low Earth orbit. (credit: General Dynamics) Beams in the sky, part 2: General Dynamics, Grumman, and composite materials by Dwayne Day Monday, July 28, 2025 Starting in the early 1970s, NASA and aerospace contractors undertook studies of space solar power satellites. The spacecraft would have to be huge, creating construction and logistical challenges unlike any ever faced during the early space age. The large structures would be composed of beams, and even though contractors like Boeing proposed very large rockets to carry construction materials into orbit, it seemed impractical to engineers at the time to carry prefabricated structures. They soon turned to in-space manufacturing, including machines that could create or assemble beam structures. This led to Grumman Aerospace proposing a beam builder using aluminum alloy beams. NASA funded Grumman’s initial work, including a ground test unit that would demonstrate automatic beam construction (see “Beams in the sky, part 1: the Grumman Beam Builder,” The Space Review, July 21, 2025.) beam builder NASA conducted underwater tests at Marshall Space Flight Center in the late 1970s/early 1980s using aluminum beams manufactured by Grumman. (credit: NASA) While Grumman was studying an aluminum beam building machine, another aerospace company, General Dynamics, was studying the use of other materials for beams. beam builder General Dynamics performed the Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment Definition Study (SCAFEDS) looking at using composite materials to construct beams/trusses in space. The General Dynamics proposal shared similarities with Grumman's design which welded aluminum beams. (credit: General Dynamics) General Dynamic’s SCAFEDS General Dynamics in the late 1970s conducted a Space Construction Automated Fabricated Experiment Definition Study (SCAFEDS). Rather than aluminum alloy, SCAFEDS used a laminated composite strip material for caps and cross-members. Some of the material was resin-impregnated for ease of manufacturing and also had an anti-radiation coating. The diagonal beams were preloaded, and the materials were ultrasonic spotwelded. General Dynamics evaluated four different configuration options before deciding on a rolltrusion forming process. A cap forming and drive section would contain all the elements to continuously process flat strips of thermoplastic material into the baseline cap configuration. Approximately 918 meters of material would be coiled in a roll retained in the storage canister. beam builder The Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment Definition machine would use composite materials in rolls that would have to be heated and shaped before being welded to cross trusses. (credit: General Dynamics) SCAFEDS would use a heating section with an internal passageway and continuous heating elements. The heated material would then pass to the rolltrusion forming section entrance. Inside the rolltrusion forming section would be strip heaters to preheat cool material during machine start-up. The material would then pass to a cooling section. Cross members would be fed into the machine and attached to the beams via spotwelding. At the end of the process a beam cutoff mechanism would sever each cap and cord member to separate a completed beam from the beam builder. beam builder The General Dynamics SCAFED study completed in 1978 included a detailed outline of how the beam construction would be conducted in orbit. (credit: General Dynamics) Although there is limited information available on SCAFEDS, the use of laminated composite materials in space was a new technology. Composites are less predictable than metals, both in manufacture and use. The SCAFEDS approach certainly would have required careful testing. beam builder In the early 1970s, NASA and aerospace companies began studying the construction of large structures in space such as solar power satellites. Beams/trusses were a major component of those structures, leading to studies of how to make them in orbit using prepared materials such as rolled aluminum. (credit: NASA) Grumman and composites Grumman also began studying composite materials while finishing development work on the aluminum beam builder. Grumman engineers studied what would be required to modify the existing machine to produce composite beams. In mid-1977, they began a “brute force” approach trying to roll form a graphite/polyethersulfone laminate using the tooling developed for the aluminum beam system (apparently not the full-test vehicle that had been delivered to NASA, but similar tooling.) The results were “disastrous, burnt toast,” according to a summary. This taught the team that they needed to look at lower temperatures as well as different materials. beam builder Grumman built an engineering demo capable of creating aluminum beams. The company also evaluated using composite materials for the beams. This Grumman illustration shows the possible assembly of the structures in space. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) The Grumman team decided to work with a graphite/acrylic material that had a lower forming temperature and a broader working temperature range. This provided sufficient experience for them to begin looking at different materials and to ask for funding “to design and build a composite structural component forming process development tool, since we had been tying up a piece of production machinery with our experiments,” according to one of the engineers. Once they had their new equipment, they returned to using graphite/polyethersulfone, with acceptable results. They tested other materials, focusing on thermoplastics, and eventually settled on a woven graphite/acrylic. According to a Grumman engineer, the composite materials offered superior performance to aluminum and could last up to 40 years in orbit. But further testing was required, including the development of a flight qualified system. That did not occur. NASA apparently did not fund any further automated beam builder studies to follow this initial work. beam builder On space shuttle Atlantis in late 1985, the EASE (Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA) and ACCESS (Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures) experiments demonstrated the first construction of large structures in weightlessness. (credit: NASA) Prefab Unlike Grumman, General Dynamics did not build a full-scale ground demonstration model. By the early 1980s, NASA discontinued the space manufacturing tests and the agency began focusing more on pre-manufactured structures that would be carried into space in the shuttle’s payload bay. On November 29 and December 1, 1985, astronauts on space shuttle Atlantis during mission STS-61B conducted the EASE (Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA) and ACCESS (Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures) experiments in Earth orbit. These experiments were the first construction of large structures in weightlessness. ACCESS was developed by the NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia and EASE was a project involving the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The experiments included the assembly of a large truss section. beam builder A 1978 illustration from NASA Langley showing the Space Shuttle assembling a large space structure using a generic beam builder machine. This technology was not actively pursued by NASA after the 1970s. (credit: NASA) A disadvantage of manufacturing structures in space is that equipment such as power and data cables must be attached to them and inspected. As aerospace engineers concluded over time, it was better to integrate and inspect equipment, including electronics, on the ground rather than in orbit. This was a problem for the 1960s Apollo “wet workshop” design that eventually became the “dry” Skylab, and was also a concern for proposed inflatable spacecraft in the 2000s. Eventually, when NASA began construction of the International Space Station in the late 1990s, it used prefabricated structures that already had major systems attached. In-space manufacturing was not part of the assembly plan. The space station did not require many large trusses, and the necessary ones could be outfitted with wiring and attached equipment that was integrated and pre-tested on the ground for greater reliability. In recent years, NASA has periodically shown some interest in in-space manufacturing, including the construction of large structures. In-space assembly and manufacturing—now referred to as ISAM—periodically receives attention and funding from NASA and private industry. However, without a clearly defined requirement, the agency has not pursued much of this technology into the flight test stage. Sources E.O. Adams and C.N. Irvine, “MSFC Evaluation of the Space Fabrication Demonstration System (Beam Builder),” NASA Technical Memorandum TM-82440, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, September 1981. Walter K. Muench, “Automated Beam Builder Update,” Space Solar Power Review, Vol. 1, pp. 299-316, 1980. Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment Definition Study (SCAFEDS). Volume 1, Executive Summary, and Volume 2: Study results, General Dynamics, May, 1978. Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment Definition Study (SCAFEDS). Part 2, Final Briefing, General Dynamics, February 3, 1978. John G. Bodle, “Development of a Beam Builder for Automatic Fabrication of Large Composite Space Structures,” General Dynamics, NASA. Johnson Space Center The 13th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, January 1979. Dwayne Day is interested in hearing from anybody who was involved in the beam builder projects, including the composite studies. He can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net.

TraCSS Traffic Coordination System For Space

TraCSS The Traffic Coordination System for Space, or TraCSS, is intended to ultimately take over civil space traffic coordination work from the Defense Department, if it retains its funding. (credit: Office of Space Commerce) Space traffic coordination’s threat of derailment by Jeff Foust Monday, July 28, 2025 Debates about federal spending typically involve figures in the billions or even trillions of dollars. Take, as one recent example, the recent budget reconciliation bill that Congress passed early this month. Senators added nearly $10 billion for NASA human spaceflight programs, extending a lifeline to the Gateway and Space Launch System, among other efforts. That was such a small part of the overall bill—which the Congressional Budget Office projects to add $3.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade—there was little public debate about its inclusion. The Office of Space Commerce has been working to have TraCSS fully operational by January 2026, providing space safety services to all satellite operators. Yet programs with budgets “only” in the millions of dollars can have major consequences if they are, or are not, funded. That is the case of the Office of Space Commerce, located within NOAA. The office is responsible for commercial remote sensing licensing and other advocacy for commercial space, but its biggest, and newest, effort is standing up the Traffic Coordination System for Space, or TraCSS (pronounced “tracks”). That would take over civil space traffic coordination work currently handed by the Defense Department, as outlined in Space Policy Directive (SPD) 3 in the first Trump Administration. By the time the second Trump Administration started in January, TraCSS was well on its way to beginning service, having begun beta testing at the end of September (see “Getting space traffic coordination on track,” The Space Review, September 30, 2024.) Several satellite operators had agreed to work with the office to test TraCSS and provide feedback that would be incorporated into later versions ahead of it formally starting services in about a year. In a talk at the Space Symposium in Colorado in April, Janice Starzyk, acting director of the Office of Space Commerce, said TraCSS had implemented upgrades as it moved in “program increment,” or version, 1.1 of the system. That offered “some big jumps in capability,” she said, including the ability of satellite operators to upload ephemerides of their satellites and perform on-demand screening of potential conjunctions. There had been hiccups along the way, such as protest one losing bidder filed when the office awarded a contract to Slingshot Aerospace last November to develop the “presentation layer” or web interface for TraCSS. That halted work on the contract until the Government Accountability Office could review, and ultimately, reject the protest in March. That pushed back the start of full services of TraCSS by a few months. “By January 2026, TraCSS.gov will be fully operational,” Starzyk said. “We will be able to accept all the users interested in joining the system.” Another issue came up in February when NOAA moved to fire probationary employees who had only recently joined the agency as part of cost-cutting moves. That swept up many people working in the office on TraCSS, including its program manager, Dmitry Poisik, who had only recently joined the office but had decades of federal government experience serving in the US Navy. Poisik was rehired several days later. That move, though, caused some in the industry to worry about TraCSS. “We don’t know if there is an organizational concern about the future of TraCSS,” said Ruth Stilwell, founder of Aerospace Policy Solutions, during a panel discussion at a space traffic management conference at the University of Texas Austin in early March. She said that it was unclear if NOAA rehired Poisik because they concluded his job was important or because of lawsuits about the firing of probationary employees across the government. By April, there were rumors that the White House was proposing to effectively cancel TraCSS in its fiscal year 2026 budget request, based on leaked details of a budget “passback” document to NOAA from the Office of Management and Budget. But it was not until NOAA released its detailed budget request at the end of June did the threat to TraCSS come into focus. “If funding for the TraCSS program is cut, numerous American commercial SSA providers are likely to go out of business while thousands U.S. satellite operator's spacecraft fleets will be placed in peril,” a letter from AIAA and CSF stated. In the document, NOAA blamed the previous administration for delays in developing TraCSS. “Under the prior administration, DOC [Department of Commerce] was unable to complete a government owned and operated public-facing database and traffic coordination system,” the document stated. During that time, “private industry has proven that they have the capability and the business model to provide civil operators with SSA data and STM services using the releasable portion of the DOD catalog.” NOAA requested just $10 million for the Office of Space Commerce, enough for it to carry out its other work but not TraCSS. The office had received $65 million in 2024 and requested about $75 million in 2025. Instead, NOAA said that commercial space situational awareness (SSA) services could handle what TraCSS could do. “The Administration confirms the intent of SPD-3 has been satisfied by supporting private industry to provide SSA services, including through offerings of both a free basic service as well as fee-based concierge services to civil operators,” the budget document stated. “DOC will continue to monitor the use of SSA services by civil operators to determine whether additional policies are warranted to ensure space remains a safe domain to operate.” Yet industry groups argued that they needed TraCSS to support those emerging SSA providers. “A commercial market for SSA data largely does not exist as European and Chinese governments provide data to their civilian and commercial satellite operators free of charge,” the heads of two industry groups, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and the Commercial Space Federation (CSF), wrote in a letter to the acting administrator of NOAA, Laura Grimm, in late June. “If funding for the TraCSS program is cut, numerous American commercial SSA providers are likely to go out of business while thousands U.S. satellite operator's spacecraft fleets will be placed in peril,” the letter stated. “OSC [Office of Space Commerce] is the right civil agency to coordinate this important SSA work in concert with the Space Force’s network for military operations.” Once NOAA released its budget confirming plans to cancel TraCSS, those and other industry groups accelerated their lobbying. On July 7, several groups, representing more than 450 companies, sent letters to Congress calling on appropriators to reject the proposed cancellation and fund TraCSS. A key argument is that continuing TraCSS would fulfill the goal of SPD-3 of reducing the workload of the Space Force, which is handling space traffic coordination today, allowing to focus more on national security roles. “Keeping space traffic coordination within the Department of Commerce preserves military resources for core defense missions and prevents the conflation of space safety with military control – critical to U.S. leadership in setting international standards and norms for space activities,” the letters stated. However, there has been an undercurrent of private criticism within the industry of the Office of Space Commerce’s approach to TraCSS. They argued that the approach the office was taking for the system didn’t take advantage of new technologies, like artificial intelligence, that could reduce the cost and complexity of the system and do away with things like an operations center in Colorado staffed 24/7. AIAA and CSF, in a separate letter to congressional appropriators in late June, appeared to acknowledge that criticism, but said TraCSS should continue. “There are reforms that could be made to the TraCSS/STC program to adjust the effort, in line with OSC’s original vision of a small government footprint and partnering with commercial entities to outsource capabilities and services,” the letter stated. “There may be no need for a new SSA command center or additional studies that admire the problem.” The July letter, though, made clear that industry was opposed to cancelling TraCSS. Among the groups that signed on was the Commercial SSA Coalition, a collection of SSA companies that would presumably benefit if the administration’s proposal to cancel TraCSS and rely on commercial providers was enacted. Through it all, one unanswered question was who in the administration—in NOAA, the Commerce Department, or the White House—wanted to kill a program that had its roots in the first Trump Administration. “The number one thing we’re trying to find out is who actually advocated for this to be cut,” said Dave Cavossa, president of CSF, in an interview. “We haven’t been able to find someone willing to raise their hand and say why they cut this.” He said in the early July interview that there was optimism that appropriators would reject the cuts. “I’m hearing optimism that there will be some money put back in the budget. I’m just not sure what that’s going to be yet.” On July 18, the Senate Appropriations Committee released the report accompanying the commerce, justice and science (CJS) spending bill that the committee approved the previous day. They decided to almost fully restore funding for TraCSS, providing the office with $60 million. “In compliance with Space Policy Directive 3, the Committee continues to support efforts to transition non-defense space traffic management and space situational awareness responsibilities from the Department of Defense to OSC,” the report stated. “The responsibilities of space traffic management and space situational awareness are inherently governmental.” House appropriators followed suit last week, releasing the report for their CJS bill, which is still pending before the House Appropriations Committee (a markup of the bill by the committee, scheduled for last Thursday, was postponed when the House elected to start its August recess early.) They provided $50 million for TraCSS. However, the House report called on the Office of Space Commerce to rely more on the Defense Department. “Given NOAA’s role in leading civil and commercial SSA activities, the Committee encourages NOAA to avoid duplicative investments in new proprietary systems and instead prioritize the acquisition and integration of existing, government-proven technologies that have been operationalized by the Department of Defense, including those currently supporting the U.S. Space Force mission,” the report states. “Transferring this program to Commerce via SPD-3 was focused on taking this program off the DoD’s plate and helping sure up a commercial SSA industrial base,” Cavossa said. Industry officials argued that ran against the whole purpose of SPD-3 of reducing the burden on the Defense Department. Moreover, TraCSS already uses a catalog of space objects provided by the Space Force, which will be augmented with data from commercial and international partners. “Transferring this program to Commerce via SPD-3 was focused on taking this program off the DoD’s plate and helping sure up a commercial SSA industrial base,” Cavossa said. “The government should rely more heavily on commercial capabilities in building this program – not less.” It’s not clear when, or if, this issue will be resolved, as appropriations bills face bigger challenges in the months to come. At a Space Foundation event last week, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), chair of the Senate CJS appropriations subcommittee, said he was hoping to attach his subcommittee’s bill to another spending bill pending in the full Senate to expedite its passage. “I’m worried that the appropriations process may deteriorate over time, particularly if there is another rescission effort,” he said, or request by the White House to revoke funds already appropriated. Congress passed once such rescission earlier this month. “I think the atmosphere may sour on the appropriations process, and it’s important for us to get our bill, this bill” through the appropriations process. The debate about TraCSS has not affected work on the system itself, which continues to advance through beta testing. In May, TraCSS moved into program increment 1.2 that included new “bulk submission” capabilities for satellite data, “ideal for operators of large satellite constellations.” On July 14, the office announced it had added one such operator to the TraCSS beta test: SpaceX. The inclusion of SpaceX, which alone operates about 8,000 Starlink satellites, vastly increases the scale of the beta test. The office said that development of TraCSS remains on schedule. “TraCSS is proceeding steadily toward production release scheduled for January 2026,” it stated. Provided Congress can find $50 million or so. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Game Changing UFO Discovery! Astronomers, Dr. Beatriz Villarroel, detec...

Space Studies In Higher Education

ISU While a few institutions , like the International Space University, focus on interdisciplinary education in space, there are opportunities for others to follow suit. (credit: ISU) The value of space studies programs in higher education by Nathan Tat and Vivian Tat Monday, July 28, 2025 Countless individuals dream of majestic careers in space, striving for the stars and beyond. Humanity was awed when Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins made history with Apollo 11. Decades later, the space sector routinely propels rockets and their payloads past the Kármán line, launches astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), and explores the universe beyond with spacecraft. In this era of rapid advances, students and professionals often voice interest in joining this industry and yearn to explore pathways into this realm. The Space Studies curriculum cultivates an interdisciplinary approach integrating science, engineering, management, and policy courses. Colleges routinely offer hundreds of majors, minors, and certificates across a diverse spectrum. However, relatively few academic institutions have incorporated an interdisciplinary Space Studies degree into their educational catalog, even as an increasing number of individuals aspire for space-related vocations. Schools can establish Space Studies degree programs to prepare students for fruitful careers in the space sector and beyond. What does a Space Studies program entail? A degree in Space Studies or related fields focuses on equipping its graduates with vital skills for careers in the space industry. The curriculum cultivates an interdisciplinary approach integrating science, engineering, management, and policy courses. Science and engineering classes strengthen technical acumen and expertise. For example, lessons could cover topics such as aerospace environments, systems engineering, and astronomy. In addition, management and business classes are also vital. For example, students can take courses focused on strategic and financial management, entrepreneurship, and accounting. Through these courses, students can familiarize themselves with business and management principles to become acquainted with how a team or company operates. Meanwhile, an overview of policy and economic concepts can help them gain macroscopic perspectives of the evolving space sector and how it interacts with the broader economy. This multidisciplinary approach promotes wider understanding and exposure to different concepts within space and beyond. Graduates can thus leverage this understanding as they ignite their professional journeys and advance in their careers. Why students and universities should be interested in a Space Studies degree Universities can differentiate themselves from other schools by offering a Space Studies curriculum. In this era, institutions increasingly strive to raise their profiles and distinguish themselves from fellow schools in a bid to attract students. Colleges regularly offer established engineering and science majors such as mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or physics. These majors have been ongoing for many decades, and some of these programs are tailored for specific industries. For instance, environmental engineering degrees are designed for their students to obtain roles in related fields. However, relatively few institutions have created a Space Studies or related degrees with an interdisciplinary approach. Rice University, The George Washington University, and Florida Tech are prominent schools with similar programs. They often leverage strengths and connections to space industry forces. As an example, Rice University is located in Houston, home of the NASA Johnson Space Center, the Houston Spaceport, and numerous aerospace companies. Thus, a Space Studies program can strengthen a region’s aerospace presence. In addition, colleges often seek to establish innovative programs, and Space Studies can offer a novel approach to encourage students to enter this industry. Developing a Space Studies program can thus help schools increase their appeal to both prospective and current students. A Space Studies curriculum can benefit students and universities in fostering connections beyond the boundaries of a campus. Higher education is a prerequisite for numerous positions, and the Space Studies degree can allow candidates to distinguish themselves. Students can stand out in the space industry by completing the Space Studies major. By finishing this degree, students will become more familiar with the space industry. Graduates in pure STEM curriculum often lack substantial exposure to management or business aspects. To this end, interdisciplinary education can engage students in academic experiences across multiple fields. The Space Studies programs can strengthen relationships between academia, industry, and government. Universities can cultivate their reputation within the industry by supporting graduates in securing well-paying and stable jobs, constructing a substantial alumni network, and connecting with employers. Government agencies, contractors, commercial companies, and other organizations could recruit from Space Studies cohorts. Thus, by constructing an invigorating pipeline of talent, universities can sharpen their brand within the space industry. Furthermore, universities can draw upon the Space Studies degree program to expand their interdisciplinary offerings. Space Studies degrees are multidisciplinary to broaden students’ understanding. Graduates in pure STEM curriculum often lack substantial exposure to management or business aspects. To this end, interdisciplinary education can engage students in academic experiences across multiple fields. Students become more well-rounded and gain a better understanding of concepts beyond a single major. Thus, students can enhance their education with a range of classes. What would be the outcomes of a Space Studies program? Crucially, the Space Studies curriculum should equip its students with transferable skills. Most graduates will progress through various positions during their career journey. Even those who initially commence at an aerospace giant or startup may discover their paths shift away within or even out of the field of space. Consequently, training students to nurture technical and power, or soft, skills across different jobs are vital. A Space Studies program should empower learners in building upon proficiencies such as presenting, leadership, teamwork, and critical thinking. Those competencies can be incorporated into the curriculum via classes, workshops, and extracurricular projects. For instance, proficiencies in oral and written communication, which can be honed through classroom and internship presentations, are applicable to essentially every role. Having project management or business acumen can be effective in understanding how organizations operate. Business and managerial skills are applicable to countless roles, and alumni can thrive in careers in other sectors using transferable skills gained throughout their education. Thus, a Space Studies education should emphasize the importance of cultivating skillsets applicable to roles both inside and outside of the space industry. Similarly, the Space Studies degree should equip its students with the capability to succeed, not just at the entry level, but also at more advanced stages of their careers. Oftentimes, individuals entering the space realm find their interests and preferences shifting over time. For those interested in management and leadership positions, business skills are often a vital asset. Leaders should have an ability to manage projects and envision the broader impact of their work. Managers and executives routinely deal with budgets, schedules, contracts, and project management. Maintaining exposure to these principles through business and management courses can offer valuable insights during the Space Studies program and introduce students to these key principles early on. As alumni advance professionally, having this knowledge will benefit them while their responsibilities shift. How could schools design their Space Studies programs? Several considerations are key in designing a Space Studies curriculum. Foremost is giving students the opportunity to select a variety of elective courses in addition to their core curriculum. During their education, they can enroll in courses across science, engineering, policy, and management. Universities can combine coursework from different departments for the Space Studies curriculum. Whereas the students may be based in one department, students should be able to pick tracks and electives in which they are interested. For instance, George Washington University has their Space Policy program within the Elliot School of International Affairs. However, students have the option to take courses in other fields, such as mechanical engineering and statistics. Thus, students can broaden their horizons by enrolling in classes in multiple departments. Crucially, the Space Studies program should highlight robust support in connecting participants with industry internships and jobs. Space Studies curriculum could be offered at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Currently, many schools with a Space Studies degree offer them at the graduate level. These tend to attract students who have completed a bachelor’s degree and/or those with previous industry experience. However, an undergraduate program could benefit many people curious about joining the space sector. Bachelor’s programs typically entail more credit hours and years than graduate programs to fulfill university requirements. This allows students to gain skills in space-related programs at an earlier stage of their education. Crucially, the Space Studies program should highlight robust support in connecting participants with industry internships and jobs. Students can target internships at aerospace corporations or organizations. Space Studies programs should be supportive of students and graduates, helping them navigate the internship and job market and providing recommendations for suitable positions. They can have career-advising sessions for resume and cover letter development as well. Though space industry internships may be the focus of most students, students who discover other appealing, non-space internships can also gain valuable insights and work experiences. Internships can be further combined with experiences such as job shadowing, virtual recruiting sessions, or tours with aerospace firms and their employees. The school can provide funding or stipends to those students who are offered non-compensated internships. Though many aerospace companies offer paid internships, some institutions still have underpaid or unpaid internships. These openings may interest students, but students who take unpaid internships or volunteer can face significant monetary challenges. Schools offering the Space Studies program could provide financial support and scholarships for their students. This can enable the students to find secure lodging and compensation. All this support from universities can further enhance the reputation of the program amongst prospective students, alumni, and industry connections. Conclusion Space Studies degrees can be beneficial to incorporate into a university’s offerings. The Space Studies curriculum should provide gateways into entering the space industry, creating a community of students and alumni that will help bridge the workforce gaps in the space industry. With the ability to equip graduates for careers in the space industry, schools could offer these programs to their students. In the years ahead, excitement for space will continue to expand. The space industry is rapidly accelerating, and we must ensure that there are qualified and capable individuals ready to propel humanity to the stars. Nathan Tat is a graduate of Rice University’s Master of Science in Space Studies program. He also completed his undergraduate degree in Economics and a Business minor from Rice. Currently, Nathan works with Amentum at Johnson Space Center and is interested in exploring space policy, innovation, and business. He also co-leads Taking Our Best Shot, an initiative focusing on STEM outreach and education. He has received several distinctions, including being named as a 20 Under 35 with Space and Satellite Professionals International (SSPI), 40 Under 40 with The Daily News, and The University of Texas Medical Branch Excellence in Interprofessional Education Award. Vivian Tat earned her graduate degrees in Experimental Pathology and Epidemiology from UTMB. She is a postdoctoral fellow conducting biomedical and public health research at UTMB and co-leads Taking Our Best Shot. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone.

An Indian Astronaut Returns From the International Space Station

ISS Indian astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla on the International Space Station during the recent Ax-4 mission. (credit: Axiom Space) Mission Gaganyaan: optimism and criticism by Martand Jha Monday, July 28, 2025 The Indian space program is over six decades old. It has seen many great chapters in its history. The one chapter it wants to add soon in that glorious history is India’s first human spaceflight mission. The chapter is currently being written with a lot of preparation and hope. Discussion about this mission started a decade ago, and gained strength by the year 2017–18. Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced it to the world on India’s Independence Day on August 15, 2018, when he declared in his address to the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort that India would send its own human spaceflight mission exactly four years later. He told the audience present there and viewers across the globe that when India would celebrate its 75th Independence Day in 2022, that day would also mark the launch of Mission Gaganyaan. This announcement made quite an impact in the technology circles, policy circles, media, and the public as well. Critics argued against the need of Gaganyaan when a mission like this was already conceived five decades ago by the superpowers like the Soviet Union and the United States during the height of the Cold War. Critics also argued about the need to invest in a human spaceflight program that would burden the public exchequer. Their third argument was that, instead of investing in human spaceflight program, why don’t the policymakers think about investing in developmental projects like sanitation, schools, healthcare, education, and so on. There are always going to be critics who would try to steer the discourse entirely towards the pressing needs of the day, even at the cost of overlooking the emerging technologies whose benefits in future might outweigh the pressing needs of today. The answer to these critics is very plain and simple. On the first point regarding the superpowers having achieved this feat half a century back, the counter question is that if some other nation has achieved something five decades back, should India not accomplish the same feat at all? This would mean not having a human spaceflight program and future missions at all because, as per the critics argument, the developed nations have already done it. Yes, they have done it for their own self interests as much as any other nation, including India, will do it for its own national interests. Yes, outer space is considered to be a global commons but that doesn’t mean that the success of one or few nations in outer space can be claimed by every other nation on the planet. Metaphorically yes, one can claim, it but that doesn’t change the world of realpolitik where every nation needs to stand up on its own and work on its own. To the second argument put by the critics regarding the costs of a human spaceflight mission burdening the public exchequer. It’s true that this will have a huge cost since outer space is an expensive business, but one has to look at this scenario rationally and weigh in whether the gains of the human spaceflight mission would outweigh the costs. To anyone who agrees with the first counter-argument, they would also then agree with this argument too: if one agrees with the premise of India having an indigenous human spaceflight program, they would also agree that it would require a certain cost. To the third argument, where the critics argued for investing in development sectors like sanitation, healthcare, and education, the counterargument is that this same line of argument was there in the late 1950s and early 1960s as well, when India as a newly independent young nation was trying to sow the seeds of an indigenous space program. That time, too, India was suffering from poverty, hunger, undernutrition, illiteracy, and more. Also, natural disasters like floods and drought used to continually plague the country. At that time, policymakers and shapers like Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, who is considered to be the father of the Indian space program, didn’t bow down to the pressures of those critics. If he had, India would probably not be even having a space program to begin with. This shows that there are always going to be critics who would try to steer the discourse entirely towards the pressing needs of the day, even at the cost of overlooking the emerging technologies whose benefits in future might outweigh the pressing needs of today. India has always walked on the philosophy of the taking the middle path, the “Madhyam Marg.” Mission Gaganyaan is also a step in the same direction: reaching for the skies, without overlooking the ground realities. Martand Jha is a researcher in the field of international relations and strategic studies. Jha is a Visiting Faculty at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication and currently involved in a Research Fellowship with Centre for Airpower Studies.

Book Review: "Inspired Enterprise"

book cover Inspiring Star Trek and NASA by Dwayne Day Monday, July 28, 2025 Inspired Enterprise: How NASA, the Smithsonian, and the Aerospace Community Helped Launch Star Trek by Glen Swanson Schiffer, 2025 hardcover, 288 pp., illus. ISBN 978-0-7643-6936-0 US$35 In spring 1967, only a short time after the devastating Apollo 1 fire, Leonard Nimoy, who played Mister Spock on Star Trek, visited NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland where he was greeted enthusiastically by NASA employees. Although demoralized over the tragic deaths of the astronauts, many at NASA were fans of Star Trek and thought of the Enterprise and its crew as the NASA of the future, a positive future of humans exploring the stars. This is one of the many connections that the show had to NASA at the time that is recounted in a new book by my friend Glen Swanson. Although some Star Trek fans may vaguely be aware of the show’s connections to NASA in the 1970s, Swanson notes that the connections ran deeper and started far earlier. Swanson, the former chief historian at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, has written Inspired Enterprise: How NASA, the Smithsonian, and the Aerospace Community Helped Launch Star Trek. In the book, Swanson recounts the ties between Star Trek, NASA, the Smithsonian Institution, and the aerospace community, and how these ties “helped craft, legitimize, and popularize the beloved television show Star Trek.” He has done a tremendous amount of archival research in multiple untapped archives as well as conducted many interviews, exploring how creator Gene Roddenberry sought to craft a show that was a believable depiction of future spaceflight by researching space travel and technology, but also how Roddenberry used these connections to publicize and promote the show. Roddenberry was a former World War II combat pilot and understood airplanes and the military. He created Star Trek at a time when the country was launching humans into space on national television and the Space Race was part of everyday conversation. He made connections within the aerospace community and hired people who provided scientific and technical advice, some of whom also had military and aviation experience. The bridge of the starship Enterprise frequently featured display screens with astronomical photos and diagrams, and the show used scientifically inspired terminology. Several episodes referred to then-current space themes, including one that featured a Saturn V rocket. Although some Star Trek fans may vaguely be aware of the show’s connections to NASA in the 1970s, such as how the first space shuttle was named Enterprise after Trekkies lobbied for it, or how Nichelle Nichols, who played Lieutenant Uhura, served as a spokesperson for NASA, recruiting some of the first African American astronauts, Swanson notes that the connections ran deeper and started far earlier. The first pilot was filmed in 1964 and the show ultimately ran on the NBC network from 1966 to 1969, and NASA and aerospace were part of it from the beginning. Roddenberry even tried, unsuccessfully, to get a current NASA astronaut to appear on the show. One episode was filmed on a brand-new aerospace campus in the Los Angeles area. Roddenberry traveled to Vandenberg Air Force Base to watch a rocket launch, and took some of the cast to a NASA facility at Edwards Air Force Base to see NASA hardware. Star Trek endures in part because Gene Roddenberry had a philosophy, a humanitarian message, and Star Trek was his pulpit. Roddenberry was trying to depict a believable future by connecting it to an exciting present, while capitalizing on the enthusiasm about space that many people felt at the time. But he was also often a shameless promoter, using the connections he made to convince network executives that Star Trek was something special. In particular, he made connections with the Smithsonian Institution, donating an episode to the museum to enhance the show’s reputation and credibility. Later, those ties led to the large Enterprise filming model being donated to the museum, where it is on display today, 60 years after it was first crafted in a small building in the Los Angeles area that is still standing. The acquisition and display of the model was somewhat unusual because the museum’s focus was on actual flight artifacts, not TV props, but it proved to be a popular attraction and demonstrated the role that culture played in inspiring people to seek careers in aerospace. Swanson also tells the story of how Roddenberry used merchandising both to make money and to popularize the show. Star Trek endures in part because Gene Roddenberry had a philosophy, a humanitarian message, and Star Trek was his pulpit. Star Trek was never trying to predict the future. It was trying to depict a future worth living in. As Roddenberry said in 1976: “Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.” In that talk Roddenberry concluded: “The much-maligned common man and common woman has an enormous hunger for brotherhood. They are ready for the twenty-third century now, and they are light years ahead of their petty governments and their visionless leaders.” Unfortunately, those words hit even harder today, when the idea of diversity, and the ideals of NASA, are under active attack. Many people who grew up watching the show in the late 1960s and then in endless reruns in the following decade were inspired to go into space careers, some of them eventually working at NASA and JPL. Star Trek and NASA reinforced each other. Today, there are efforts to tear down the positive vision of the future that NASA has long stood for. I’ll write more about Swanson’s important and impressive new book in the future, but you should read it yourself. You can order a signed copy through Glen’s Facebook page.

Beyond the Stars (1989)

10 Canceled 1970s Sci-Fi Shows That Hollywood Didn’t Want You to See!

10 Sci-Fi Films That Were Too Ahead of Their Time

Why These Genius Sci-Fi Films Flopped — And Deserve a Second Chance

The 10 Most Controversial 80s Sci-Fi Movies That Got Banned (Part II)

Tesla Robotaxi vs Waymo | Didn't Expect This

I Tried Tesla’s NEW Diner—Is It Worth the Hype?

Starship Tech Update Reveal, and Fire Time Already!? 🔥

Trailer The Exploration Begins

Stranger than Oumuamua UPDATE! New images, mysteries of 3I Atlas!

1995 Sci-Fi That’s Still Better Than Most Modern Movies

10 MUST-SEE SCIENCE FICTION SERIES on Amazon Prime in 2025!

FINALLY SpaceX Will Launch the Dream Chaser Using Falcon Heavy!

15 Beloved TNG Actors Who Tragically Passed Away

Did NASA find UFOs on the Moon? Or another Oumuamua?

The Andromeda Strain Cast Reveals What Most Fans Never Figured Out

From Spacewalks to Jail: NASA’s Most Shocking Scandal

Shouldn't NASA and SpaceX just go straight to Mars, instead of back to t...

10 Underrated ’90s Sci-Fi Movies You’ve Never Seen (But Should!)

15 Forgotten 80s Sci-Fi Movies That Got The Future Alarmingly Right

SpaceX Starship: What If We're Not The First To Set Foot On Mars?

In six months, NASA will do something that has never been done before! ...

The Case For Nuclear Power in Space

DRACO NASA and DARPA had selected Lockheed Martin and BWXT in 2023 to develop a nuclear thermal propulsion demonstration spacecraft for NASA/DARPA’s DRACO program, but DARPA recently pulled the plug on the effort. (credit: Lockheed Martin) Making a new case for space nuclear power by Jeff Foust Monday, July 21, 2025 Like so many space projects, DRACO started with a bang but ended with a whimper. The bang was in January 2023, when the leaders of NASA and DARPA took the stage at the AIAA SciTech Forum outside Washington to announce they were partnering on the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) project. DRACO would demonstrate nuclear thermal propulsion, or NTP, a technology many saw as key to enabling rapid missions to Mars or extreme mobility closer to home. “Our goal is to launch and demonstrate a successful nuclear thermal engine as soon as 2027,” Bill Nelson, NASA administrator at the time, said. “The understanding of the risks and the challenges of launching a reactor were probably underestimated in the beginning of that program,” DARPA’s McHenry concluded. Several months later, the agencies selected Lockheed Martin to develop the DRACO spacecraft (see “Nuclear space gets hot”, The Space Review, July 31, 2023). After that, though, DRACO faded into the background, with only occasional updates from the agencies. More recently, there had been reports that work on DRACO was slowing, or had stopped entirely. It was not until the release of NASA’s fiscal year 2026 budget request at the end of May, though, that the public found out about DRACO’s demise. In a document filled with proposed cancellations of dozens of NASA missions, the agency said it was requesting no money for its share of DRACO. “The request also reflects the decision by our partner to cancel the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) project,” the document stated, without further details. A DARPA official later said that several factors contributed to DRACO’s demise. Rob McHenry, deputy director of DARPA, said at a recent webinar by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies that the agency started DRACO before what he called a “precipitous decrease in launch costs” by SpaceX as well as a reevaluation of whether NTP was the best approach. “As the launch costs came down, the efficiency gained from nuclear thermal propulsion relative to the massive R&D costs necessary to achieve that technology started to look like less and less of a positive ROI,” he said. “So, the national security operational interest in the technology was decreasing proportionally to that perception.” There was also growing interest in nuclear electric propulsion, or NEP, which offers much higher efficiencies in terms of specific impulse compared to NTP, albeit with lower thrust levels. NEP also offered the advantage of providing a source of electrical power—it uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity for the electric propulsion system or for other applications—whereas NTP simply used the heat of a nuclear reactor to transfer energy to a propellant like liquid hydrogen. “Nuclear electric is probably a more optimal long-term solution,” McHenry said. “That power in the space domain may be the critical enabler as much as the propulsion efficiency.” He also suggested DARPA was running into problems testing DRACO’s NTP technology on the ground, citing “infrastructure barriers” for the project. “We want to do the disruptive tech. We don’t want to go spend massive amounts of money in improving core infrastructure of other government facilities.” “The understanding of the risks and the challenges of launching a reactor were probably underestimated in the beginning of that program,” he concluded, leading DARPA to walk away from the project. The announcement of DRACO’s demise was a first blow in a double-whammy for space nuclear advocates. The same NASA budget proposal that revealed DRACO’s cancellation also put no funding towards NASA’s own research into both NTP and NEP. The report noted the US had spent nearly $20 billion in constant-year dollars on space nuclear programs over the years, such as NERVA in the 1960s and Prometheus in the early 2000s, with little to show for it. “These efforts are costly investments, would take many years to develop, and have not been identified as the propulsion mode for deep space missions,” the document stated. “The nuclear propulsion projects are terminated to achieve cost savings and because there are other nearer-term propulsion alternatives for Mars transit.” Congress may not go along with that move. A spending bill advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week rejected the cuts, directing NASA to spend at least $110 million on nuclear propulsion. It also includes $10 million to create a “center of excellence” for nuclear propulsion research to be located in a region that does not have a NASA center but does have “a large population of industry partners who are also invested in nuclear propulsion research.” The House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up its version of a spending bill that includes NASA later this week. Powering up space nuclear The cancellation of DRACO is the latest in a long line of setbacks for advocates of space nuclear power and propulsion. There have been few successes since the launch six decades ago of SNAP-10A, the first and only US space nuclear reactor. “Everything since 1965, when we launched our first reactor, has fizzled despite billions invested,” said Bhavya Lal, former NASA associate administrator for technology, policy and strategy. “We remain in R&D purgatory, producing papers, not kilowatts.” In the case of DRACO, she said, “nobody was asking for it, and when things got in a jam, it was easier to let it go.” She was speaking at a Washington Space Business Roundtable event last week to discuss a new report she and Roger Myers, a former Aerojet Rocketdyne executive and member of the National Academy of Engineering, recently completed for the Idaho National Laboratory regarding development of space nuclear power. That report noted the US had spent nearly $20 billion in constant-year dollars on space nuclear programs over the years, such as NERVA in the 1960s and Prometheus in the early 2000s, with little to show for it. “One core insight of our study is that the US didn't fail to deploy space nuclear systems because we lacked the physics or the funding or the people,” she said. “What we didn't have was mission pull, institutional coherence, and a sense of scale.” Lal described a vicious cycle where a lack of demand, or “mission pull,” resulted in a lack of technology development and flight opportunities, and thus a lack of trust by mission planners in space nuclear technology. When there were nuclear programs funded, she argued agencies overreached, trying to do too much too quickly, like NASA did with Project Prometheus two decades ago. “Time and again we have tried to begin with building the space equivalent of the SR-71 when we should have started with the Wright Flyer.” Those factors that have hindered development of space nuclear power are changing. One change, she noted, is the emergence of a mission pull for the technology. NASA, in its Moon to Mars Architecture development, recently identified fission power as its requirement for surface power on Mars missions. Another is geopolitics. China and Russia have proposed developing megawatt-scale nuclear power systems for the International Lunar Research Station program they plan to establish in the south polar regions of the Moon. “A continuously operating Chinese reactor on the lunar south pole would create de facto territorial control and justify exclusion zones under the guise of safety, and they would be right to do so,” she said, citing provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. That could require others to seek permission to land in the region to comply with that interpretation of the treaty’s language on avoiding interference. “In space as on Earth, first movers make the law.” “A 2028 ground test and a 2030 flight aligns with budget cycles, agency leadership terms, and congressional expectations,” Lal said. “Miss it and we risk stakeholders walking, funding drying up, and competitors defining the future without us.” In the paper, Myers and Lal call for the rapid development of a space nuclear power system, with or without propulsion. The goal is to have a system ready for ground tests in 2028 and an in-space demonstration in 2030. “We found that if we need to make progress in space nuclear, we need to begin with a small, manageable system on a timeline that keeps stakeholder interest,” Lal said. The paper offered two approaches for doing so. One scenario, dubbed “Go Big or Go Home,” would develop a space nuclear power system capable of producing 100 to 500 kilowatts of power, which could be incorporated into a propulsion system. This would be a government-led effort with a potential cost of $3 billion. The second scenario, “Chessmaster’s Gambit,” would fund parallel public-private partnerships for smaller systems of between 10 and 100 kilowatts. One track, involving NASA, would focus on a surface reactor that could be used on lunar missions and be later scaled up for Mars. A second track, for the Defense Department, would develop a reactor for in-space applications. Each would cost about $1 billion. In either scenario, staying on schedule is key. “A 2028 ground test and a 2030 flight aligns with budget cycles, agency leadership terms, and congressional expectations,” she said. “Miss it and we risk stakeholders walking, funding drying up, and competitors defining the future without us.” The report also included a third scenario, to be carried out in parallel with either of the other two, to develop new radioisotope power systems like the RTGs that NASA has long used for generating power for missions where solar was not an option. This effort would work to bring in new suppliers and use new isotopes, like americium-241 or strontium-90. “Option three is low-hanging fruit,” Lal said. “It buys time, credibility, and momentum, no matter what, and it provides a fallback if larger efforts slip.” The report didn’t express a recommendation for either of the two other scenarios, but she said it depends on the level of commitment and leadership. “Option one delivers transformational capability, no doubt, but demands extraordinary alignment and resources,” which she compared to the Manhattan Project. “Option two offers a more executable pathway, grounded in near-term missions and existing agency strengths.” Either scenario is not an end in and of itself, Lal said, but a step towards greater capabilities down the road: “enduring presence on the Moon and Mars, propulsion to Mars, nuclear tugs in Earth orbit, power for peace and projection in contested regimes.” “We’ve spent 60 years circling this problem. The pieces are finally in shape,” she concluded. “What we need now is resolve.” Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Constructing Large Structures In Space

beam builder Before the Space Shuttle began flying in 1981, there were numerous proposals for using it to construct large structures in space. NASA evaluated various technologies for manufacturing these structures, including proposed flight tests. Grumman Aerospace was one of the contractors that studied technology for building large, lightweight beams in space. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) Beams in the sky, part 1: the Grumman Beam Builder by Dwayne Day Monday, July 21, 2025 While NASA was racing to the Moon in the 1960s, some agency contractors were studying the assembly of large structures in space. Many concepts involved launching large, pre-built components on Saturn V or even bigger rockets like the Nova, and some envisioned connecting them in orbit to form multi-module space stations. But there were limits to these types of structures, and by the mid-1970s, as NASA and contractors undertook studies of solar power stations, communication platforms, and space manufacturing facilities, they began considering possible in-space manufacturing of structures. The shuttle’s large payload bay, its mission as a space truck hauling equipment and supplies to and from orbit, and the ability to have astronauts use the shuttle as a work platform, all spawned multiple mission and technology concepts. In 1977, under NASA contract, Grumman Aerospace began research on the Beam Builder, often referred to as the Grumman Beam Builder. This was a device that would be carried in the Space Shuttle payload bay and would fabricate triangular truss beams of aluminum alloy up to 300 meters (984 feet) long. Grumman built a ground demonstration unit that was delivered to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in 1978 and underwent testing there. beam builder Grumman built a ground demonstration unit for the beam builder, but hoped for an eventual flight test. The beam builder would have been mounted vertically in the payload bay. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) The Grumman Beam Builder As NASA was developing the shuttle in the early 1970s, the agency was also considering what role it would play in future space efforts. The shuttle’s large payload bay, its mission as a space truck hauling equipment and supplies to and from orbit, and the ability to have astronauts use the shuttle as a work platform, all spawned multiple mission and technology concepts. The beam builder was one of these, and NASA and contractor engineers studied the possibility of operating the device while it was mounted in the shuttle payload bay, manufacturing structures that could then be connected together. The beam builder Grumman began work on was 4.26 by 3.35 by 2.74 meters (14 by 11 by 9 feet), weighed 9,979 kilograms (22,000 pounds), and could fit inside the payload bay. The flight version would be considerably lighter. It would use flight-qualified, higher-reliability parts compared to the off-the-shelf parts used in the ground demonstrator. beam builder The Grumman Beam Builder evolved out of early-mid 1970s proposals for large space structures such as solar power satellites. Grumman built a ground demonstration unit that was delivered to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in 1978 and underwent testing there. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) Grumman’s ground demonstration unit manufactured aluminum “bays” that were 1.5 meters long and, during demonstration and testing, built beams of 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 bays. This proved the concept of automatic beam fabrication. Grumman had previously developed the bay design for a photovoltaic power system thermo/structural study. The design could be used for the solar array and the microwave antenna. It would be the building block for large structures. The concept was for the beam builder to be left in space with shuttle missions bringing up the materials to be used during manufacture. beam builder Grumman's initial design used rolled aluminum that would be spot welded to vertical and diagonal trusses. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) The beam building demonstration unit used off-the-shelf components to save time and money. A flight version would have to use all new space-qualified equipment. It would also have to be designed to operate in the vacuum of space and use far less power. The beam builder had three spools of aluminum alloy, two mounted on each side and a third on top. The flat material was pre-cleaned to remove any oil or foreign matter and was 16.2 centimeters (6.375 inches) wide and 0.04 centimeters (0.016 inches) thick. It could be up to 300 meters (984 feet) long. The material moved through three sets of five rollers in the feed guide system which fed the material into the rolling mills system. It would then move on to the brace storage system, carriage system, spot welding system, and shear cut-off system. The brace storage system held the vertical and diagonal braces that would be fed into the machine. beam builder The Grumman Beam Builder ground demonstration unit used rolled aluminum as well as pre-made vertical and diagonal trusses. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) The spot-welding system had 72 electrode copper weld tips, six electrode copper weld blocks, six transformers, and a weld controller. Half of the copper weld tips spot welded the vertical braces and the other half spot welded the diagonal braces. The material had to be properly aligned as it moved through the machine to avoid flaws. After the fabrication cycle completed, the shear cut-off system would automatically cut off the triangular truss beam. During testing at Marshall, several problems were encountered, which was not unusual or unexpected for a first of its kind technology demonstrator. While many of these were solved, one of the bigger problems was that “the beam builder spot welding system requires an excessive amount of energy for the fabrication of the triangular truss beams,” a NASA assessment concluded. Grumman therefore researched alternative fastening systems. These included self-piercing rivets, staples, grommets, stamp-lock, and other options. Some of these methods such as staples and self-piercing rivets had the disadvantage of producing debris, which could be a hazard to the machine, shuttle, and astronauts. One of the bigger problems was that “the beam builder spot welding system requires an excessive amount of energy for the fabrication of the triangular truss beams,” a NASA assessment concluded. In addition to the demonstration model, NASA also conducted tests inside the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator at Marshall, a large water tank that could be used to simulate weightlessness for astronauts and operated from 1968 to 1997 before it was replaced by a larger facility south of Houston, Texas. Truss structures that were apparently made by the demonstration unit were put in the tank along with a mockup in the overall shape of the beam builder. They were mounted to a mockup shuttle payload bay and tested with engineers wearing simulated spacesuits. The tests were focused on issues like payload bay clearance and how spacewalking astronauts could maneuver around the structures. NASA decided on the pierce-and-fold system for further development because it required minimal energy, little or no maintenance, no additional material such as rivets, bolts, or staples, and no continuous adjustment. However, NASA had also evaluated an alternative technology using composite materials rather than aluminum. That will be discussed in part 2. beam builder beam builder beam builder Trusses made in the ground demonstration unit were placed in Marshal's Neutral Buoyancy Lab for testing. (credit: Grumman Aerospace) Sources E.O. Adams and C.N. Irvine, “MSFC Evaluation of the Space Fabrication Demonstration System (Beam Builder),” NASA Technical Memorandum TM-82440, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, September 1981. Walter K. Muench, “Automated Beam Builder Update,” Space Solar Power Review, Vol. 1, pp. 299-316, 1980. Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment Definition Study (SCAFEDS). Volume 1, Executive Summary, and Volume 2: Study results, General Dynamics, May, 1978. Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment Definition Study (SCAFEDS). Part 2, Final Briefing, General Dynamics, February 3, 1978. John G. Bodle, “Development of a Beam Builder for Automatic Fabrication of Large Composite Space Structures,” General Dynamics, NASA. Johnson Space Center The 13th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, January 1979. Dwayne Day is interested in hearing from anybody who was involved in the beam builder projects, including the composite studies. He can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net. Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.

US Space Force Unofficial Hymn

Space Force song The US Space Force has an official song, sene here performed in 2022, but also an unofficial hymn. (credit: US Air Force photo by Eric Dietrich) The National Cathedral Version of the Space Force Hymn: “Creator of the Universe” by James F. Linzey Monday, July 21, 2025 In early 2020, I stepped into a dusty brick building in Coffeyville, Kansas—home to the Dalton Gang Museum, which I bought. Amid aging memorabilia stood an upright piano with cracked keys and faded varnish. Sitting before it, I searched for a melody that had been stirring in my spirit since I first heard the Trump administration propose the creation of a sixth armed service branch: the United States Space Force. Within the hour, I struck a flowing eight-bar phrase, scrawled several stanzas on paper, and titled the work “Creator of the Universe.” The words felt uncannily cathedral-like—simple, solemn, and reverent. They formed a prayer for Guardians preparing for missions far beyond the atmosphere: Creator of the universe, Watch over those who fly; Through the great spaces beyond the earth, And worlds beyond the sky. What began on an untuned piano in a Kansas town of fewer than 10,000 residents would become known as “The Space Force Hymn”—a piece now embraced by chaplains, churches, Space Force personnel, veterans’ organizations, and military bands. Though not officially commissioned or sanctioned by the Department of Defense—which is barred by the First Amendment from establishing religious music—the hymn has taken on a life of its own. A tradition of unofficial hymns Every US military branch has its official march, but the hymns that become spiritually synonymous with service arise from civilian religious culture. These hymns reflect prayer, praise, and petition to God. For the Navy, it's “Eternal Father, Strong to Save.” For the Air Force, it's “Lord, Guard and Guide the Men Who Fly.” I aimed to continue that lineage with a hymn for an era defined by space-domain awareness, cislunar security, and satellite defense. To some defense analysts, a hymn might seem peripheral to budgets, launch systems, or satellite constellations. But cultural artifacts—songs, mottos, ceremonies—build identity. To signal continuity, I deliberately incorporated echoes of both the Navy and Air Force hymns—referencing “Eternal Father, strong to save” and alluding to the “great spaces of the sky.” In doing so, I framed the Space Force not as a novelty, but as a natural evolution in American defense. The chaplain behind the verse My background spans theology, linguistics, and military service. Ordained in the Southern Baptist Convention, I served nearly 24 years as an Army and Air Force chaplain, retiring as a major. I hold a Master of Divinity from Fuller Theological Seminary and completed advanced biblical Greek studies at Westminster Seminary California. I also served as chief editor of the Modern English Version of the Bible. That background, I contend, was essential. “If you misquote Scripture or drift into bad doctrine, the troops will notice,” I told Christianity Today. “They need accuracy as much as inspiration.” Recording the National Cathedral Version Though the hymn originated on a creaky upright piano, it reached its polished form through Dan Kreider, a Florida-based composer, choral conductor, and music minister. Kreider’s recording captured the slow tempo, rich with harmonic texture reminiscent of Ralph Vaughan Williams. The result is not a martial anthem but a reverent petition—fitting for a service whose domain begins 100 kilometers above the Earth. “It’s like you’re in a cathedral,” I said. “The reverence—they captured it.” Reception: Applause, curiosity, and a constitutional concern Since its release, “Creator of the Universe” has reached far beyond Coffeyville. Coverage has appeared in The Coffeyville Journal, The Times Examiner, Montgomery Independent, Black Hills Pioneer, and others. Major evangelical outlets including Christianity Today, Baptist Press, Faith News Network, and Charisma Media have featured the story. Nationally syndicated radio programs aired recordings and interviews during the Independence Day 2024 season. Not everyone welcomed the hymn. In 2020, a secular advocacy group submitted letters to the Department of Defense, warning that any official performance might violate constitutional boundaries. The Pentagon responded by affirming that the hymn, like other military hymns, remains unofficial and is used only in voluntary religious, patriotic, or cultural contexts. The matter never reached litigation, and chaplains continue to use the hymn in services. Cultural significance: Why hymns still matter in the orbital age To some defense analysts, a hymn might seem peripheral to budgets, launch systems, or satellite constellations. But cultural artifacts—songs, mottos, ceremonies—build identity. They humanize a force whose mission unfolds in an environment measured in kelvins. Technology wins battles; narratives win minds. When Congress authorized the Space Force in December 2019, critics mocked the move as theatrical. But five years later, Guardians operate cyber defense cells and monitor thousands of objects in orbit. What the service still lacks are traditions—those symbols of continuity and cohesion. The hymn helps fill that void. It casts the Guardians’ mission in moral and even cosmic terms, reminding listeners that outer space is still, in many worldviews, “the heavens.” The road to a hymnal—and beyond Will “Creator of the Universe” one day appear in a Department of Defense hymnal alongside the Navy and Air Force hymns, or be arranged for a full military band? I would welcome it, but am content to let the hymn spread organically. Future verses, I say only half-jokingly, might one day mention cislunar gateways or solar-sail logistics. For now, the hymn retains a purposely timeless prayer of petitioning the “Eternal Father” who “in solitude of sov’reign grace” might grant courage for each flight. Final measure Coffeyville’s old piano is silent again, its keys still. The former Dalton Gang Museum awaits renovation. But the melody birthed there now echoes far beyond southeast Kansas—perhaps in a Vandenberg control room, a chapel on Guam, or a small-town Coffeyville church on Veterans Day. Wherever it is sung, one thing remains true: a prayer is rising—toward worlds beyond the sky. Major James F. Linzey, USA (Ret.) is a Southern Baptist minister and retired US Army and Air Force chaplain.

Book Review: Cosmic Fragments

book cover Review: Cosmic Fragments by Jeff Foust Monday, July 21, 2025 Cosmic Fragments: Dislocation and Discontent in the Global Space Age by Asif A. Siddiqi (ed.) ‎University of Pittsburgh Press, 2025 hardcover, 416 pp., illus. ISBN 978-0-8229-4843-8 US$65 The space community is often accused of talking amongst itself rather than reaching out to broader audiences, a criticism that is far from baseless. The industry has its own events and its own journals, conversing in a jargon that can be difficult for those outside the field to understand. There’s often discussion about public opinion and interest in such fora, but without the participation of the public. One examines how the mass media covered the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project 50 years ago this month, and makes the case that such coverage helped enable the mission. That, however, is true of many fields, where the depth of specialization is achieved through the sacrifice of breadth of participation. That came to mind when reading Cosmic Fragments, a collection of essays edited by spaceflight historian Asif Siddiqi. The book was a project, he writes in the introduction, “to wrest the history of space exploration from its normative fetishization of machines, men, and manifest destiny” and incorporate topics normally excluded, from environmental effects to the displacement of indigenous peoples. The book is the result of a years-long effort that included a symposium planned for 2020 but cancelled because of COVID, instead held online the following year. The essays are thematically split into four parts, titled Landscape, Empire, Waste, and Rupture. They cover topics ranging from how the development of spaceports affected local environments and people to tracing changing Russian views on spaceflight through post-Soviet film. The book examines some interesting themes, such as how space powers placed launch sites in “empty” areas that often were anything but. One chapter explores how NASA often described the site of the Kennedy Space Center in the 1960s as “empty, tropical, and primitive,” even though the region for centuries has been home to native peoples and, more recently, a settlement established by freed slaves that was cleared to make way for the spaceport. Similar issues are described in places like Kourou in French Guiana and Woomera in Australia. It is also not solely a Western issue: one chapter describes how the early Indian space program selected Sriharikota Island for its spaceport, dispersing a native population there, while another discusses local opposition to Russian launches from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, in part because of accidents that spilled toxic propellant. There are fascinating essays on other topics as well. One examines how the mass media covered the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project 50 years ago this month, and makes the case that such coverage helped enable the mission by encouraging a reluctant Soviet Union to participate given public support for cooperation versus competition by the end of the 1960s. Another traces how international space cooperation and competition is portrayed in movies in the late 1990s through the 2010s, from acclaimed films like Contact and Hidden Figures to, ah, Geostorm. (The focus on film, unfortunately, means that depictions in television are ignored, with the rich alt-history of For All Mankind only mentioned in passing.) Another author has a similar view of those suborbital spaceflights, calling them a “pale, ersatz version of the US-Soviet space race” that “achieved less, and for more money” than the 1961 flights of Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard. Some authors, though, show a disdain, it not animus, towards commercial spaceflight and some of its leading backers, often couched in academic language. One essay starts by noting the suborbital flights of Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos in 2021 took place amid the pandemic, climate change, and a rise in authoritarianism. “Interrogating these phenomena as co-constituted rather than coincidental provides greater clarity on the material relations and social conditions through which contemporary human engagements with outer space are being produced,” the essay states. Outside of a particular slice of academia, it’s not clear that sentence provides much in the way of greater clarity. (The author does not help themselves when stating, in the same paragraph, “Unlike most space-related activities taking place globally, these flights served no scientific purpose.” Most contemporary space-related activities involve commercial or national security applications, with science lagging far behind.) Another author has a similar view of those suborbital spaceflights, calling them a “pale, ersatz version of the US-Soviet space race” that “achieved less, and for more money” than the 1961 flights of Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard. In a heavily footnoted academic work, that eyebrow-raising claim that Bezos and Branson spent more on their flights than the US and USSR did on their first human spaceflights goes unsupported. While there is a variety of topics explored in Cosmic Fragments, it’s clear that the audience for this book is primarily academia, particularly those in humanities. There is a lot that the space industry can learn from the humanities regarding perceptions and views about space, and a lot those in the humanities can learn about the technology and economics of spaceflight. Unfortunately, the two either ignore or talk past each other, which is not a new phenomenon (see “Review: Off-Earth”, The Space Review, April 10, 2023). The book ends up illustrating the importance for those studying or working in spaceflight to not just talk within their own groups but to also talk to each other, and to the broader public. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Tesla Robotaxi Exceeded My Expectations in Downtown Austin

Static Fire on Launch Pad Incoming, Plus Booster 13 Recovered After 8 Mo...

INDEPENDENCE DAY 3 Is About To Blow Your Mind

Astronaut Discovers Humans Are The Original Inhabitants Of Mars — Earth ...

The Rise & Fall of Revolution (2012): A Blackout Saga That Couldn’t Keep...

Bionic Woman - Series Trailer

Bionic Woman (2026) | Teaser Trailer | Alexandra Daddario, Chris Evans

INDEPENDENCE DAY 3 The Final Invasion Begins!

Independence Day 3 - Teaser Trailer (2026) | Will Smith, Tom Cruise & Je...

In 90 days, Blue Origin will beat SpaceX to the Moon! But there's a big...

Space： Above and Beyond 1995 E01&E02 Pilot Full Episode

10 Most Underrated Space Adventure Movies - Why Did No One Watch These?

Breaking: Starship’s New Stand is Up and Flight When!? Yea, a LOT Just H...

Battlestar Galactica (2025) | First Teaser Trailer | Starring Charlize T...

Mitchum | Night of the Aliens (1979)

3I Atlas may be heading for Earth after all! Stranger than Oumuamua UPD...

1985 Sci-Fi That’s Still Better Than Most Modern Movies

Tesla’s Phallic Robotaxi Map Has Performance Issues

Britain, France announce new orbital spaceplanes! Big win for Spaceport...

New Battlestar Galactica movie getting second chance revealed

GENE RODDENBERRY STRANGE NEW WORLD

The Controversial 1960s Sci-Fi Films That Got Banned

UPDATE! Stranger than Oumuamua! Mainstream science is hiding the stran...

A Japanese Automaker Is Producing A Reuseable Rocket

Honda demonstrator A reusable launch vehicle demonstrator built by Honda on a June 17 test flight. (credit: Honda) A Japanese automaker’s small hop towards reusable rockets by Jeff Foust Monday, July 14, 2025 Last month, a small vehicle ignited a rocket engine and lifted off from a pad. Retracting its landing legs, it rose to an altitude of about 270 meters. It immediately started a controlled descent, extending four grid fins near the nose while deploying the landing legs again. Roughly a minute after liftoff, it landed back on the same pad. In one video, the vehicle disappears in a plume of vapor immediately upon landing, adding a bit of drama for several seconds until the plume disperses, showing the vehicle standing intact on the pad. Honda is at least considering getting into the launch business, testing technologies for a future reusable launch vehicle, a sign of how reusable technologies, and mindsets, are proliferating. From a technical standpoint, this flight did not break much ground. The DC-X did similar hop tests more than three decades ago, while startups ranging from competitors in the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge more than 15 years ago to Chinese companies today seeking to develop reusable launch vehicles have flown similar tests. Blue Origin’s New Shepard booster lands under rocket power after flying above the Kármán Line, while SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster has done such landings so frequently they have become routine: it’s now rare when such landings don’t happen. What made this test distinct is that it was not done by a major company in the space industry or a startup or even a government agency. The flight that took place from a test site on the island of Hokkaido in Japan was performed by Honda, a company best known as a car and motorcycle manufacturer. That company is at least considering getting into the launch business, testing technologies for a future reusable launch vehicle, a sign of how reusable technologies, and mindsets, are proliferating. Elemental research Honda’s announcement of the June 17 flight took many in the space industry by surprise. The company said in 2021 it was studying reusable rocket technologies but had revealed no details about progress since then until that flight. Work on reusability started before that, said Keiji Ohtsu, president and representative director of Honda R&D Co., during a talk at the Spacetide conference in Tokyo last week. The project had its origins when a young engineer, whom he did not identify, at the company noted that many of the technologies Honda was working on for automotive applications, from combustion to guidance for autonomous vehicles could be adapted for space. The project started off in 2019 working on rocket engines, as well as a small vehicle designed to hover just off the ground. That led to the larger vehicle flown last month, 6.3 meters tall and 0.85 meters in diameter, weighing 900 kilograms when empty and 1,312 kilograms when fully fueled. “The takeoff and landing tests were conducted to verify the elemental technologies described here,” he said in a translation of his Japanese-language remarks provided by conference organizers. That included attitude and guidance systems that allowed the vehicle to land within 37 centimeters of its target on the pad. While the test was a success, Ohtsu said that Honda had not yet committed to developing a reusable launch vehicle of some kind using that technology. “The takeoff and landing test was successful, but we are still in the elemental research stage,” he said. “Nothing has been decided yet for commercialization.” He did note that Honda planned to continue testing those technologies, such as a flight to 1,000 meters by 2027 and a full suborbital flight by 2029. He did not disclose how much Honda had spent on the vehicle or the budget for those future tests. “We believe that rocket research is a meaningful endeavor that leverages Honda’s technological strengths,” Toshihiro Mibe, global CEO of Honda, said in a statement after the flight. “The takeoff and landing test was successful, but we are still in the elemental research stage,” Ohtsu said. “Nothing has been decided yet for commercialization.” Beyond the fact that Honda believes it has the technologies for a reusable rocket, why is it investing time and money into this project? “By launching satellites using rockets, we can develop connected mobility technologies,” Ohtsu said. “This will lead to values that are highly compatible with Honda.” He suggested that went beyond traditional applications of satellites, for communications and remote sensing, to future concepts like space-based data centers. “It is expected that data utilization that does not rely on ground-based electricity will progress,” he said. “So, we want to use our technology to enrich the lives of people on Earth from space.” The reuseable rocket is the most prominent, but not the only, space-related technology that Honda is working on. The company is also developing regenerative fuel cells, with plans to work with Sierra Space and Tec-Masters to test the technology on the International Space Station in 2027. The company is also applying its work on robotics to space, such as humanoid “avatar” robots on the Moon controlled remotely or operating autonomously using artificial intelligence. Themis The Themis T1H reusable launch vehicle demonstrator undergoing tests at an ArianeGoup facility in France. The vehicle was shipped last month to Sweden for hop tests. (credit: ArianeGroup) Meanwhile, in Europe Honda’s flight took place while much of the aerospace industry was gathered at the Paris Air Show. Honda itself did not promote the flight at the show, but it was nonetheless discussed privately among attendees. For some, the flight was evidence that Europe was trailing badly in the race to develop reusable vehicles. It was one thing to be beat by SpaceX or other American companies, or even Chinese companies that are borrowing heavily from the designs of Falcon 9 and Starship for their proposed reusable vehicles. But to have a Japanese automaker fly a reusable vehicle technology demonstrator, developed on its own, was particularly frustrating. That said, Europe is working on reusable vehicle technologies. That effort includes Prometheus, a methane-fueled engine designed for reuse, and Themis, a vehicle powered by Prometheus that will be used for launch and landing tests. Those efforts are supported by both ESA and the European Commission, the latter through a project with the contrived acronym of SALTO, or reuSable strAtegic space Launcher Technologies & Operations. During a panel on space transportation at the Paris Air Show June 17, Martin Sion, chief executive of ArianeGroup, the Ariane prime contractor also working on Prometheus and Themis, said that the Themis demonstrator had just been shipped from an ArianeGroup factory in France to the Esrange Space Center in Sweden for its first hop tests. “This is an important part of our reusability roadmap,” he said. “This is not about chasing spectacle—it’s about mastering complexity, one carefully crafted demonstrator at a time, on the path from short hops to orbital return,” the SALTO website stated. Themis is significantly larger than the Honda vehicle, resembling more closely SpaceX’s Grasshopper vehicle from more than a decade ago used for vertical takeoff and landing tests. ESA devoted an entire article to the overland journey of Themis, 28 meters long and 3.5 meters in diameter, from France to Sweden, taking two weeks to travel more than 3,000 kilometers. Now at Esrange, workers are preparing the vehicle for tests leading up to a first hop flight to an altitude of about 100 meters. Officials have not discussed detailed scheduled for Themis, but have suggested they would like to conduct the first hop test before the end of the year. There is industry skepticism, though, that Themis will be ready to fly before early 2026, given delays in its development: in 2020, when ESA awarded ArianeGroup a contract for Themis, it was expecting the vehicle to be ready for full suborbital flight tests, not just hop tests, as early as 2023. Those later suborbital flights would involve a version of Themis designated T3 with multiple Prometheus engines (the version now at Kiruna for the hop tests is known as T1H and has a single engine.) T3 would fly a profile similar to a reusable first stage of an orbital launch vehicle, including both reentry and landing burns before landing at a site downrange of the launch pad. There is no current schedule for building T3, though. A May article posted on the SALTO website described the vehicle as being still only in the “detailed design” phase, emphasizing the “careful, calculated steps” in the development of reusable vehicles in Europe. Where that will lead is uncertain. SALTO calls the planned T3 vehicle a “vital bridge” to full-scale orbital launch vehicles with reusable first stages, but the timeline and process for development is unclear. One obvious beneficiary of the work on Themis is MaiaSpace, the ArianeGroup subsidiary working on a small launch vehicle with a reusable first stage powered by the Prometheus engine. MaiaSpace is working towards a first launch of that vehicle, likely starting with an expendable first stage, as soon as next year. Others in Europe are working on reusable vehicles. Spanish company PLD Space says it plans to recover and reuse the first stage of its Miura 5 small launch vehicle, also targeting a first launch before the end of 2026. Reusability will also factor in the development of Miura Next, a family of larger vehicles the company announced last year. The slow progress on Themis illustrates the wide gap in Europe’s approach to reusability compared to elsewhere. “Behind the thunder of rocket engines lies a quieter revolution: the methodical development of reusable launch technology that could reshape how Europe accesses space,” the SALTO article stated. “This is not about chasing spectacle—it’s about mastering complexity, one carefully crafted demonstrator at a time, on the path from short hops to orbital return.” That seemed to deliberately contrast with SpaceX’s approach rapidly iterate, even if that meant a spectacle of test flight failures. Yet, Honda showed it is possible for a company to be quietly methodical and yet move faster than a space agency. Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

Super Man And The Skylab Rescue

Skylab In 1972, NASA began planning in case a crew became stranded at the Skylab space station. The plan was to use the next-in-line Saturn IB and Apollo Command and Service Module, equipped with extra seats, to launch two astronauts to rescue the three in orbit. A major aspect of the plan was to recover as much mission data as possible. (credit: NASA) Superman and the Skylab rescue by Dwayne Day Monday, July 14, 2025 The 1969 movie Marooned is not one of Gene Hackman’s best roles. The story, adapted from a 1964 book by the prolific Martin Caidin, features an Apollo spacecraft that separates from its Skylab space station only to suffer an engine failure, stranding the astronauts in orbit, unable to return to Earth or their station. Hackman played an astronaut who took over after his commander committed suicide to save his crew. Although it was fictional, the concept was based in fact, and only three years later, in 1972, NASA studied what to do if astronauts became stranded in space at Skylab if their Command and Service Module (CSM) failed. NASA engineers assumed that the failure would happen while the spacecraft was still attached to Skylab, and the space station was equipped with a second docking port, allowing a rescue vehicle to arrive. Skylab Skylab was launched in 1973 and suffered a mishap during launch, requiring the Skylab 2 crew to repair it. During the Skylab 3 mission, a problem with the thrusters on the Apollo spacecraft caused NASA to begin implementing its rescue plan. (credit: NASA) SL-R NASA began working on its Skylab rescue planning in early 1972, producing an initial set of requirements by May. They were updated again in November to include readiness response times and provide data missing from the initial document. The plans were updated again in May 1973, right before the first Skylab launch, and then a last time in August 1973, before the last launch—but after a major scare during the second crewed mission. Both NASA’s Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, which managed astronaut missions, and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, which designed Skylab, jointly produced a 40-page report on the proposed rescue plan. Three crewed missions were planned (Skylab 2, 3, and 4) and the SL-R plan during these missions was for the next vehicle in-line to serve as the rescue vehicle. The rescue CSM would be flown by two astronauts and equipped with special seats for accommodating three extra astronauts, for a total of five. They would be cramped inside the spacecraft, but they could still return home. A key focus of the planning was salvaging as much mission data as possible. The mission, which NASA designated SL-R, was a contingency mission designed to safely return the crew should the docked Command and Service Module “be rendered unusable for a safe return.” Three crewed missions were planned (Skylab 2, 3, and 4) and the SL-R plan during these missions was for the next vehicle in-line to serve as the rescue vehicle. The program also had a backup CSM and Saturn IB in addition to the in-line vehicle. The in-line and backup vehicles would continue in a normal state of readiness until a decision was made that the SL-R mission was required. At that time the rescue field modification kit would be installed in the in-line vehicle according to an accelerated schedule. A second kit would be installed in the backup during the planned test and checkout flow. The rescue CSM would be launched with two astronauts, rendezvous and dock with Skylab, and retrieve the Skylab crew, returning to Earth with five astronauts. But the goal of the mission was not simply saving the stranded astronauts, but making sure their mission was not in vain. Skylab Skylab grew out of the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) to use Apollo hardware for non-lunar missions. Early AAP plans were unrealistic, and the program was dramatically scaled back as NASA's budget shrank.. (credit: NASA) Rescuing poop data In addition to rescuing the crew, the mission would consider returning selected experiment payload data, performing a diagnosis of the CSM failure, and configuring the Skylab for revisit, provided those tasks did not compromise the primary mission. Most of the rescue planning document was devoted to what data to preserve and how to make tradeoffs about what to bring back to Earth. The timeline was to plan for a rescue mission capable of launching as early as mission days five, six, or seven. The mission should be able to accommodate options that included the disabled CSM jettisoned or still docked to Skylab. If the CSM was jettisoned, the rescue CSM would dock in the normal, axial, docking location at Skylab. If the disabled CSM was not jettisoned, the rescue CSM would have to dock at the radial position, 90 degrees perpendicular to the axial docking port. This would require special procedures to enable the best lighting position for docking. The maximum time that the rescue CSM would be docked to either port would be 40 hours, and total nominal mission duration would be limited to five days from launch to splashdown. Skylab Illustration from the Skylab rescue plan detailing how the rescue astronauts might dock with the secondary docking port on the space station if the crippled original Apollo spacecraft was not jettisoned. (credit: NASA) At least one rescue crewman would be required to sleep in the rescue CSM during the docked phase if a sleep period was scheduled. Ballast (to compensate for the missing third astronaut during launch) would be transferred from the rescue CSM to Skylab prior to undocking. Skylab was equipped with the Apollo Telescope Mount, which held multiple instruments for Earth and Sun observing. Many of these used film, and that film would have to be retrieved by extravehicular activity (EVA) prior to the docking of the rescue CSM. Not all of the film could be retrieved by the rescue CSM, so some would have to be stored on Skylab, hopefully for retrieval by a later mission. Skylab Skylab Everything about Skylab was big. Here the Multiple Docking Adapter is undergoing checkout and testing. The MDA had two docking ports for Apollo spacecraft, and was also the connection point for the Apollo Telescope Mount, which held multiple instruments. (credit: McDonnell Douglas via Michael Mackowski) The rescue plan established guidelines for return of experiment data, noting that reductions from a normal mission return would affect all experiments. The priority was to “select data to maximize scientific return with each experiment group rather than maximizing return of single experiments.” This would be based upon quantity and quality of data on previous missions, the present mission, data return of the present mission by alternate means such as telemetry, voice, and TV, and finally, expected return on any subsequent mission. A major aspect of Skylab research was monitoring the health of the crew—much of which would be accomplished on the ground using samples collected from the astronauts in space. Therefore, the rescue mission allowed up to 127 pounds (57.6 kilograms) for the urine chiller and contents. Mass was also allocated for other medical samples, including fecal and vomitus samples, ATM film, and other film and tape. The rescue plan provided detailed instructions on what to return and how to make trade-offs in the different types of scientific data. Skylab Skylab Skylab was based on the third stage of the Saturn V rocket and included a large payload shroud. The shroud was tested in Ohio. (credit: NASA) Rescue of a different kind Skylab was launched May 14, 1973. During its flight through the atmosphere, the workshop’s meteoroid shield broke loose and ripped off one of its two main solar panels. Ground-based radars detected multiple pieces of debris coming off the station. Skylab entered orbit and jettisoned its large payload fairing as planned, but it was severely damaged. (See “Saving Skylab the top secret way,” The Space Review, May 22, 2023.) “We were so clever as the backup crew,” said Lind, “that we worked ourselves out of a flight!” After Skylab was launched in mid-May, Skylab 2, carrying astronauts Pete Conrad, Joseph Kerwin, and Paul Weitz was launched 11 days later on a mission to rescue and repair the damaged laboratory. It was a bold plan that worked. The Skylab 2 astronauts spent 28 days on the space station. The Skylab program went on to great success. Skylab 3 was launched on July 28 on a 54-day mission. But not everything went smoothly, and the rescue scenario was almost put into action. While Alan Bean, Owen Garriott, and Jack Lousma were aboard the station during the Skylab 3 mission in August 1973, one of the on-orbit spacecraft’s quad thrusters failed. Soon a second quad thruster began to fail. NASA began a rescue launch campaign. Astronauts Vance Brand and Don Lind had been selected as the rescue astronauts for both Skylab 2 and 3. They began preparing for the rescue mission. However, as they started training in the simulator, they determined that it was still possible to fly the Apollo spacecraft without the thrusters. “We were so clever as the backup crew,” said Lind, “that we worked ourselves out of a flight!” “You really didn’t want to have to go rescue them,” he added. “You really wanted to bring them back safely with all their equipment.” By August 10, NASA canceled the rescue mission after it became clear that the spacecraft could safely return the crew. For the final Skylab mission, Skylab 4, launched November 16 on an 84-day mission, NASA had a Saturn IB rocket with an Apollo spacecraft positioned on the launch pad on December 5. It remained there until the Skylab 4 crew successfully returned to Earth. The Saturn IB and Apollo were then returned to the Vehicle Assembly Building and later used for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Skylab Skylab Skylab was based on the third stage of the Saturn V rocket and included a large payload shroud. The shroud was tested in Ohio. (credit: NASA) Postscript Marooned posed a much tougher problem than NASA faced during Skylab 3—a CSM stranded in orbit, not attached to Skylab. But as the late, great John Charles wrote in 2019, that was a highly unlikely scenario, because there were multiple methods to retrieve an Apollo Command Module even in the very unlikely event that the main engine failed. (See “Saving Colonel Pruitt,” The Space Review, June 3, 2019.) NASA had prepared for almost every possible scenario. In 1972, 16-year-old Tim Gagnon wrote to his senator asking him to arrange an invitation for Tim and his father to the launch of Apollo 17. He was surprised when he said yes. “During the visit to KSC, we attended the prelaunch briefings and one included the story of the patch,” Gagnon remembered over half a century later. “Sitting in the audience I decided that this is what I wanted to do.” Skylab Tim Gagnon proposed this patch design for the Skylab Rescue mission in 1973. It was not needed or produced, but decades later he made a limited number of the patches. (credit: Tim Gagnon) “The next year I began writing to astronauts asking if I might help design their patch. The Skylab mission patches had all been done but in the summer an issue arose during the second crewed increment with the reaction control system on the Service Module,” Gagnon recalled. “When Vance Brand and Don Lind were announced as the Rescue crew, I submitted two designs for their patch.” One was an “official” design, and the other was a fun design showing Superman bringing the Command Module back to Earth. “I had in mind the Apollo 14 backup patch when I drew that one.” Skylab .In 1973, Tim Gagnon also designed a “fun” patch for the Skylab Rescue mission. (credit: Tim Gagnon and Jorge Cartes) Gagnon later went on to design space mission patches for NASA. “Fast forward to 2017 and I meet Vance Brand and his wife Beverly at Spacefest in Tucson. I greet them and say, Sir, you have no reason to remember this but in 1973 I sent you patch designs for the Skylab Rescue mission.” Brand’s wife said, “I know exactly where they are and when we return home I’ll get our son to take them down from the attic.” In September 2017, Gagnon received the package with the drawings he had not seen in 44 years. Gagnon licensed AB Emblem to make and sell them and they are available for sale. Sources Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, “Mission Requirements: Skylab Rescue Mission SL-R,” August 24, 1973. The rescue plan can be downloaded here. Ben Evans, “Launch Minus Nine Days: The Space Rescue That Never Was.” David J. Shayler, David. J., Space Rescue: Ensuring the Safety of Manned Spaceflight, Springer, 2009 NASA, History of Space Shuttle Rendezvous, JSC-63400, Revision 3, Mission Operations Directorate, Flight Dynamics Division, October 2011, chapter 5. J. Muratore, “Space Rescue,” NASA, 2007. Dwayne Day wishes to thank Roger Guillemette and Tim Gagnon. He can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net.