Four space stories that demonstrate our progress, or lack thereof. The first is about how reliance on SpaceX is putting NASA’s Artemis Program at risk. The second illustrates the growing problem of space debris cluttering up low-Earth orbit. The third describes what should be a significant Russian technological achievement, the building of a nuclear-powered rocket. The last story may mark the beginning of Blue Origin’s emergence as a commercial space competitor for SpaceX with its stranglehold monopoly on launch services.
So, let’s begin.
NASA’s Artemis Announcement Illustrates Its Achilles Heel
When NASA selected SpaceX’s HLS (Human Landing System), a modified version of the company’s Starship, the goal was to meet the 2025 date for the Artemis III mission to return humans to the lunar surface. With 2025 coming to an end, we are not even close to meeting that milestone. Why? One of the reasons is delays to the Artemis II mission, which doesn’t involve SpaceX. Artemis II was supposed to fly in 2024, but now has a tentative launch date sometime in February 2026. Artemis II involves the Space Launch System (SLS), another NASA Boeing boondoggle that has been delayed for years and gone significantly over budget.
Using the excuse of the Artemis II mission delay, however, makes little sense when addressing SpaceX’s Starship program to date. Starship is well behind schedule to meet the Artemis Program’s goals. The last two Starship launches have worked out many of the spacecraft’s bugs. Sometime in 2026, a new version of the Starship will be launched, and if successful, will be followed by additional demonstration launches into low-Earth orbit where objectives for the Artemis III mission will be tested and hopefully perfected.
I have previously described the gamble NASA made in choosing SpaceX for Artemis III. Now, with the long delays, the agency leadership is getting cold feet about SpaceX. Sean Duffy, the current Secretary of Transportation and interim head of NASA, has decided to stir the pot, seeking alternative suppliers to get Artemis III to the lunar surface before China’s stated goal to do the same by 2030. He described opening the contract up to an accelerated process while inviting Blue Origin, a SpaceX competitor with a landing system being built for Artemis V, to take a shot.
Blue Origin is building two landers for NASA, Mark 1 and 2. Mark 1 is near completion for uncrewed, supply missions to the lunar surface. Mark 2, a much larger version, is the human landing system for Artemis V. Can Blue Origin modify Mark 1 to carry humans to the lunar surface? Duffy wants an all-in crash program to develop it as an alternative to SpaceX’s HLS. Mark 1 would more closely resemble the LEM of the Apollo Program.
I don’t know if Duffy had anyone else to turn to if SpaceX fails to deliver. In response to Duffy’s opening of the contract, SpaceX has fired back, confirming it would have Starship back on track in 2026 with the HLS finished and ready for deployment. Exact timing states SpaceX will be dependent upon the upcoming new Starship’s low-Earth orbit test flights.
NASA’s return to the Moon looks to be in trouble.
Debris Strikes Return Vehicle for Chinese Taikonauts on Tiangong
Tiangong, the Chinese equivalent of the International Space Station, currently has a crew of six on board. The problem is that there should only be three. Why? A new crew complement recently arrived on Tiangong to relieve its three residents, who were to return to Earth using Shenzhou, China’s crew capsule. Hours before they were to depart, however, a piece of space junk struck the capsule. The status of the capsule’s viability for the return to Earth remains in question.
If Shenzhou cannot be repaired, then China’s Manned Space Agency (CMSA) will have to do one of two things. Either use the capsule that brought the new crew to Tiangong, or send up an empty spacecraft to replace the one already damaged.
Can Tiangong handle the needs of six versus its normal complement of three? When China designed the space station, it created sufficient life support and workspace for six. Cargo spacecraft can continue to supply Tiangong as CMSA determines how to address the current challenge.
The problem of accumulated space junk is a growing reality. With the present pace of launches from Earth, low-Earth orbit is getting crowded. The estimated number of space junk objects stands now at over 50,000 pieces larger than a softball, and millions of smaller fragments, all travelling at speeds of 7 kilometres (4.34 miles) per second.
For comparison, a high-calibre rifle can fire a bullet at maximum speeds of 1.2 km/s (0.75 m/s). At that speed, the projectile can penetrate metal, concrete and cause catastrophic failure to structural components. Now imagine that bullet travelling 5.8 times faster. That amount of kinetic energy upon impact would punch large holes in any object it encounters, including a spacecraft. In addition, the impact would release secondary debris travelling at high speed to cause a collision cascade, and the Kessler Syndrome, the threat that space debris strikes would eventually make low-Earth orbit space uninhabitable, once considered theoretical but now closer to reality.
Russia Builds Nuclear Rocket Prototype
Scientists at Rosatom in Troitsk, Russia, recently revealed a working prototype plasma propulsion engine. Deployed in space, the engine could achieve speeds of 100 kilometres (62 miles) per second. Compare that to chemical rockets with speeds ranging from 1.5 to 12 km/s (0.95 to 7.5 m/s). The higher range is needed to achieve escape velocity from Earth’s gravity and represents the upper performance limit of chemical propulsion systems.
Plasma propulsion is similar to ion thrusters but much more powerful. When NASA launched Dawn to Vesta and Ceres in the Asteroid Belt, it used chemical rockets to get to space and, after leaving Earth’s orbit, deployed ion thrusters that over time accumulated speed to achieve an average of 11 km/s (approximately 7 m/s) with a top speed of 31 km/s (19.2 m/s). The power to drive Dawn’s ion thrusters came from its very large solar panels. Xenon was the propellant carried as part of the payload. More than half was dispensed in getting Dawn from Earth to Ceres.
The Russian plasma propulsion engine uses hydrogen as its propellant. Hydrogen is far more abundant than Xenon gas. The engine generates 300 kilowatts during operation. That means solar panels would be considered insufficient. Hence, the power source is a small nuclear reactor that will drive a turbine and generator.
What are the implications of using plasma propulsion to get to Mars? At its closest approach, Mars lies 54.6 million km away. On average, Mars is 225 million km away. At its furthest, it is 401 million km. Travelling at 100 km/s, that means, once deployed, a plasma propulsion spaceship could travel 8.6 million km (5.3 million miles) per day. A trip to Mars when the Red Planet is closest could theoretically take 6.3 days and when furthest, 46 days. Averaged out, plasma propulsion travel to Mars would take less than 30 days. Compare that to chemical propulsion, with timelines measured between 6 and 9 months.
So far, the Russian engine has operated continuously for 2,400 hours, more than enough time to make it to Mars. The unavoidable question is, can Russia continue to support and invest in the technology, considering the increasing financial strain caused by the conflict with Ukraine? If it can, a flight-ready engine demonstrator powered by a nuclear reactor could be operational by 2030.
Can another national space agency or commercial operator duplicate or acquire the technology? Possibly, because a plasma propulsion system would fundamentally change how we humans travel beyond Earth in the 21st century.
Blue Origin Finally Enters the Space Launch Business
If all goes as planned on Sunday, November 9, 2025, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will launch NASA’s ESCAPADE, a mission to Mars involving two spacecraft. ESCAPADE is to map the near-space environment of Mars, including its magnetic fields and ionosphere. Our understanding to date is that Mars lacks a magnetic field similar to Earth’s. It is believed that this was not always the case and that something happened to the Martian core over 4 billion years ago that caused the magnetic field to switch off. Only a localized southern hemispheric field remains. This overall lack explains why Mars has lost most of its atmosphere to space.
As interesting as ESCAPADE will be, the New Glenn launch represents a change in the status quo of commercial space operations. This will be New Glenn’s second flight and first with a paying customer. The first was in January of this year. The reusable first stage was not recovered in that flight. In this second flight, Blue Origin hopes to land the booster for reuse. This will make it the third commercial space operator to attain partial reusability. SpaceX and Rocket Lab are the others.
New Glenn can lift 45 tons to low-Earth orbit. Its reusable first stage means launch costs can dramatically decrease. Larger capacity than Rocket Lab, it represents a true competitor for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy
