NASA Revives Voyager 1's thrusters

Maybe the better wording is NASA resurrected the thrusters since they've been considered dead since 2004.   

Engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California have revived a set of thrusters aboard the Voyager 1 spacecraft that had been considered inoperable since 2004. Fixing the thrusters required creativity and risk, but the team wants to have them available as a backup to a set of active thrusters whose fuel tubes are experiencing a buildup of residue that could cause them to stop working as early as this fall.

In addition, the mission needed to ensure the availability of the long-dormant thrusters before May 4, when the Earth-bound antenna that sends commands to Voyager 1 and its twin Voyager 2 went offline for months of upgrades.

As a refresher, the Voyagers were launched in 1977 for a "four year mission" to Jupiter and Saturn - the 48th anniversary of the first launch (Voyager 2, not 1) will be in August.  The flybys of Jupiter and Saturn were part of a "Grand Tour" of the outer planets that had been studied in the 1960s when a doctoral student named Gary Flandro was working at the Caltech JPL.  He was the guy who plotted the positions of all of the outer planets for the coming 20 years, (with pencil and paper) and realized that a trajectory was possible where a probe could use each planet in series as a gravitational slingshot to the next.  A complete tour of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune could be done in 10 or 12 years rather than the decades such a tour might require otherwise. The mission launch window would open for a matter of months in the late 1970s, and then the geometry would be gone - not appearing for another 175 years.   

Voyager 1 exited the solar system in August of 2012, followed by Voyager 2 in November of 2018, and are the farthest objects from Earth of anything made by humans.  They're getting farther at around 35,000 mph.  

Both spacecraft rely on a set of primary thrusters to gently pivot them up and down as well as to the right and left in order to keep their antennas pointed at Earth so they can send back data and receive commands. Within the primary set of thrusters are other thrusters that control the spacecraft’s roll motion. Seen from Earth, the roll motion rotates the antenna like a vinyl record to keep each Voyager pointed at a guide star it uses to orient itself. Both spacecraft have a primary and backup set for these roll movements.
...
To manage the clogging tubes in the thrusters, engineers switch between the sets of primary, backup, and trajectory thrusters of both Voyagers. But on Voyager 1, the primary roll thrusters stopped working in 2004 after losing power in two small internal heaters. Engineers determined the broken heaters were likely unfixable and opted to rely solely on Voyager 1’s backup roll thrusters to orient the star tracker.

I've said before that I consider the Voyagers among the greatest accomplishments mankind has ever achieved, rivaling Apollo 11 as the Peak of Western Civilization, and things like this effort - coming up with clever tricks to keep these probes working as they're approaching the 48th year into their four year mission - are one of the reasons.  The big thing they were working around (and concerned about), that the Deep Space Network antenna they rely on would be going out of service, has happened before and the two Voyagers glided along just as predicted for 11 months until the dish was back operating.  The Voyagers are on the order of 18.5 radio (= light) hours away, so any communication that gets messed up could just open another batch of problems - or be the last communication we ever have with the Voyager.

While both Voyager spacecraft remain operational, however, their age and immense distance from Earth have brought about significant technical challenges. The radioisotope power generators that keep them running gradually weaken each year, forcing NASA to recently shut down instruments and heaters to conserve energy in order to push the spacecrafts' systems beyond their limits. Voyager 1 also experienced a recent data glitch caused by a faulty chip; engineers resolved this with a clever software workaround.

Yet despite these hurdles, the Voyagers continue to function — a testament to both their robust design and the ingenuity of the teams managing them.

This NASA graphic shows the locations of NASA's Voyager spacecraft in interstellar space.  At this scale, the distance that their 35,000 mph velocity adds is invisible. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Wait... a first what flew where?

For the first time in the US, a rotating detonation engine flew a test flight at New Mexico's Spaceport America.

A rotating detonation engine?  RDEs aren't completely immune to being talked about here on the blog, and we did an intro to the topic five years ago.  To borrow a summary:

Rotating detonation engines, or RDEs, sound like something out of science fiction, but the concept is about as old as the space age itself. In the late 1950s and early '60s, aerospace engineers working on rocket engines envisioned RDEs as a way to turn a problem into a solution. “Sometimes the rocket motors would get a real bad instability and you’d get an explosion,” pioneer Arthur Nicholls recalled in a University of Michigan interview shortly before his death. “Then it led to the idea—well, what if we use that?”

The US company is called Venus Aerospace, and on Wednesday, May 13, they reported they had completed a short flight test of their rotating detonation rocket engine at Spaceport America in New Mexico. 

The company's chief executive and co-founder, Sassie Duggleby, characterized the flight as "historic." It is believed to be the first US-based flight test of an idea that has been discussed academically for decades, a rotating detonation rocket engine. The concept has previously been tested in a handful of other countries, but never with a high-thrust engine.

"By proving this engine works beyond the lab, Venus brings the world closer to a future where hypersonic travel—traversing the globe in under two hours—becomes possible," Duggleby told Ars.

There's not much information in that article over on Ars Technica; just that it was a small launch vehicle powered by the company's 2,000-pound thrust engine, launched from a rail in New Mexico.  The vehicle flew for about half a minute, and, as planned, did not break the sound barrier.  

Fundamentally, RDEs are liquid-fueled engines and there's no shortage of conventional liquid fueled engines and no shortage of different fuel/oxidizer combinations.  The savings come from the details.  In conventional liquid rocket engines, the fuel and oxidizer are pressurized and fed into the ignition chamber using bulky turbopumps and other complicated machinery.  An RDE doesn’t need these pressurization systems, because the shock wave from the detonation provides the pressure. 

Sassie Duggleby and her husband Andrew founded Venus Aerospace nearly five years ago with the goal of making RDEs a commercially viable option for building business jet-sized hypersonic aircraft that fly in the range of Mach 5, 6, or more and carry perhaps a dozen passengers.

Those long range goals are essential, but keeping your business alive and growing is also essential.  Venus is attempting to find more near-term opportunities and revenue sources.  The company is seeking to position itself as a leader in affordable hypersonic flight for commercial and defense applications.

"It is vital for US interests that the government continues to fund efforts to maintain America’s economic competitiveness and national security," Sassie Duggleby said. "Hypersonics is one of the critical technologies to remain ahead of our national competitors. We’re fortunate to have robust interest from both government and commercial sectors."

A rotating detonation rocket engine takes off in New Mexico, visible at the middle top of the photo. Credit: Venus Aerospace

It looks like Starship Flight Test 9 is in final preparations

On Monday, May 12, SpaceX performed a long duration - 60 second - static fire test on Ship 35, apparently clearing the way for preparations for Flight Test 9, or FT-9, to resume at their normal pace - normal for SpaceX, not the industry in general.  Video here.

Starship ignited its Raptor engines Monday morning on a test stand near SpaceX's Starbase launch facility in South Texas. The engine ran for approximately 60 seconds, and SpaceX confirmed the test-firing in a post on X: "Starship completed a long duration six-engine static fire and is undergoing final preparations for the ninth flight test."

SpaceX hasn't officially announced a target launch date, but maritime warnings along Starship's flight path over the Gulf of Mexico suggest the launch might happen as soon as next Wednesday, May 21. The launch window would open at 6:30 pm local time (7:30 pm EDT; 23:30 UTC). If everything goes according to plan, Starship is expected to soar into space and fly halfway around the world, targeting a reentry and controlled splashdown into the Indian Ocean. 

If you haven't been watching the details, you might not know that in an attempted static fire on May 1st, there was an anomaly that either caused the software or the operators to abort the test.   Video of the test here, from Lab Padre's weekly report, the video is queued to start just before the test.  They report that 25 seconds into the 60 second test, one of engines sputtered and put out a bright flash that led to the test abort.   

This is a high stakes test because of the previous two test flights ending in failures that seem to be related. 

... SpaceX investigators, working under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration, determined the Starship test flight in January failed after propellant leaks led to fires in the rocket's aft compartment, or attic. This led to the early shutdown of the rocket's engines and eventual breakup.

Engineers concluded the leaks were most likely caused by vibrations during the ship's climb into space. The vibrations were in resonance with the vehicle's natural frequency, intensifying the shaking beyond the levels SpaceX predicted. For the next test flight on March 6, SpaceX made changes to the ship's feed lines routing fuel to its Raptor engines, made adjustments to propellant temperatures, and flew the engines at a new throttle setting.

The January test flight they're referring to was Flight Test 7.  SpaceX hasn't released the results of the investigation into the Flight Test 8 failure, and the FAA hasn't yet issued a launch license for Flight 9. Likewise, SpaceX hasn't released any information on the changes it made to Starship for FT-9. 

The booster for FT-9 is the first SuperHeavy booster that will be reused.  The booster for FT-9 made its first flight in FT-7, when it soared to the edge of space, released the Starship upper stage, and returned to the launch pad, where it was caught in mid-air by the giant chopsticks.  They will attempt to recover the booster after stage separation on this flight, too. 

Screen grab from a video of FT-5 seconds before the successful grab, October of '24. Image credit: SpaceX

Reusing the booster from FT-7 is a natural for the Starship program. After all, they intend for the ship to be not just reusable, but rapidly reusable.  More like an airplane than any current rocket.

EDITED TO ADD 5/14/25 5:25 PM EDT:  As of Wednesday afternoon, 5/14, NextSpaceflight shows the launch to be Wednesday evening, May 21st, at 7:30 EDT, 6:30 Central (local) time.

ESA Mission tests precision formation flying - aces test

The European Space Agency today announced the results of a test of the precision flying ability of two satellites in their Proba-3 mission.  The test was conducted on May 8th. 

The European Space Agency's (ESA) Proba-3 mission, consisting of two spacecraft called the Occulter and the Coronagraph, flew in perfect formation at a distance of 150 meters (492 feet) from each other with millimeter precision, the agency announced in a May 8 statement.

The pair autonomously maintained their relative position for several hours thanks to a series of sensors, including the Fine Lateral and Longitudinal Sensor (FLLS) laser instrument, a shadow position sensor, and camera-based systems, in combination with onboard software and small cold gas thrusters.

Proba-3 project manager, Damien Galano, said , "we are talking about millimetric accuracy in range, and sub-millimetric in the lateral position," in the ESA statement.  

The Proba-3 mission consists of two satellites, the Occulter and Coronagraph using the Occulter to block the sun, mimicking a total solar eclipse.  That allows the Coronagraph to study the sun in a state only occasionally seen from Earth during total solar eclipses - except Proba-3's Coronagraph can observe the sun for up to six hours at a time.

Diagram of Europe's two Proba-3 formation-flying satellites in action. (Image credit: ESA-F. Zonno)

But the breakthrough in demonstrating such exquisite levels of formation flying may well have bigger implications for future science and space applications beyond studying the sun. The precision formation technology could be used for enhancing Earth observation, docking spacecraft, using an occulter and observatory to search for exoplanets, and space-based gravitational wave detection.

When I first heard of this mission, I assumed  it was launched on an Ariane 6 or some other ESA launch vehicle.  Instead, it was launched by an Indian PSLV rocket in December.  Proba-3 is in a rather eccentric orbit, with a perigee of 600 km and apogee of 60,000 km (both numbers approximate but close) or 373 to 37,300 miles.  A reason for the 100:1 difference in nearest to farthest (to Earth) points in the orbit, is that the effects of Earth's gravitational pull are smaller out at apogee, meaning formation flying can be maintained with less use of propellant.

It's probably worth pointing out that the pair isn't ready to "do science" now.  The remaining challenge is to get all of the payloads checked out and ready to set up the first man-made solar eclipse. 

A Rare Meme Dump

Most of the times when I do an "I got nothing" post, it's because the day got away from me.  Today it's because I've been trying to find something to write about for hours and there's just NOTHING - just like the days of coverage of the big nothing-burger (but slightly historically interesting) story of the Cosmos 482 satellite reentry.   

Yeah, I guess some of that time was spent doing some research on various personal problems and concerns.  Like "we had spectacular Sporadic E Tuesday and Wednesday, why did it just stop?"  In the space of an hour I worked two stations thousands of miles away and in opposite directions,  Angola in southern Africa and the Austral Islands in the south Pacific.  While it's not exactly the same, the 50 MHz (6 meter) ham band is just at the bottom of where the old VHF TV Channel 2 was, so it's like watching TV on channel 2 from sub-Equatorial Africa or the South Pacific.  

Said to be from Mechanix Illustrated in the late 1950s,  predicting everyone having a flying saucer within 10 years.

Michael Ramirez 

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comics.  I sent this to my son for his 43rd birthday with a note that this was us 35 years ago.  He agreed.

Since the live action Snow White bombed so badly, the idea of recasting it with the biggest-name black movie star is being floated.  Let's just say Ms. Zegler is not pleased.  There are YouTube videos featuring (I assume) AI generated Samuel L Jackson figures that seem to only be there to hear him say the MF word while celebrating success as Snow White.

The Last Photo of Cosmos 482

If we're to believe Space.com's story, the end of the 53 year wandering of the failed Cosmos 482 Venus lander occurred this morning within minutes of the center of the time predicted yesterday.  Yesterday's prediction from the European Space Agency was centered on 0637 GMT (I prefer to call it Universal Time UT or Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)):  "2:37 a.m. ET (0637 GMT) on May 10 +/- 3.28 hours." 

Today's story said:

Reentry occurred at 2:24 a.m. ET (0624 GMT or 9:24 a.m. Moscow time) over the Indian Ocean west of Jakarta, Indonesia, according to Russia's space agency Roscosmos. Kosmos 482 appears to have fallen harmlessly into the sea. [Bold added - SiG]

A mere 13 minutes earlier than the predicted time - 2:24 AM instead of 2:37 AM ET.  

They posted this picture, credited to Astronomer Gianluca Masi of the Virtual Telescope Project taken just before sunrise in Rome, Italy.   Judging by the time in lower right hand corner, 0304 UTC, this was more than three hours before the end of the mission, so "a couple" of orbits.

The image credit is, of course, up above the picture: Gianluca Masi.  I have to confess to stretching the brightness and contrast in my photo editor because I found it difficult to read in the real photograph.  

Should Gianluca Masi or anyone associated with the Virtual Telescope Project prefer I take this down, let me know by commenting here or the email address in the right column, and I'll remove it.

Oh, and BTW, I opened this piece with, "if we're to believe Space.com's story," because I'm not sure they believe that time, based on the wording they used. 

That's just one estimate, however; other space agencies and tracking organizations predicted different reentry locations, from the South Asian mainland to the eastern Pacific. It's unclear when or if we'll get a definitive answer to where Kosmos 482 came down.

The Re-Entry Window for that Russian Satellite is getting smaller

Back in Monday's post about the return of the Soviet Union's Cosmos 482 lander originally intended to land on Venus looking to come back to the ground on Earth, the window it would re-enter in was originally cited as "May 10, plus/minus 2.2 days."

A good rule of thumb in these situations is the closer we get to the launch window, the less the uncertainty.  As of 3:00 PM ET, the latest prediction from the European Space Agency is: "2:37 a.m. ET (0637 GMT) on May 10 +/- 3.28 hours."  Since 0.28 hours is 16.8 minutes, I'll just call it 17 minutes and add/subtract 3 hours 17 minutes to get both ends of the window - which is just about 6:34 (hrs: mins) long.  The uncertainty therefore covers 0320 to 0954 GMT.  They also provide this graphic of the orbits that cover that range.  Notice over on the west coast of Australia, there's a red dot noted as COW 0637, or Center of Window 0637 GMT.  The uncertainty combines to cover 9:54 PM Friday night to 5:20 AM Saturday morning.  

A 'ground track' map showing the latest predictions on where the Kosmos 482 Venus probe could fall to Earth on May 9 or May 10. (Image credit: ESA/ESOC Space Debris Office)

The main thing to bear in mind that things like getting affected by reentering space junk is so unlikely that it makes winning the Lotto seem like an absolute certainty. The Earth's surface is 71% water and an area of just under 197 million square miles.  Both the target and the satellite are a couple/few square feet out of those millions of square miles.  I dove into this a year ago in a story about a guy in Naples, (southwest Florida) who is either the luckiest or unluckiest guy on the planet because a piece of a battery pack from the International Space Station hit his house.  

Rocket Lab's Neutron awarded US Military contract

Rocket Lab's heavier lift platform, Neutron, is under development so it's fitting that the Neutron has been picked for a US Air Force mission that's also under development.  

The mission, slated for no earlier than 2026, will fall under the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) “rocket cargo” program, which explores how commercial launch vehicles might one day deliver materiel to any point on Earth within hours—a vision akin to airlift logistics via spaceflight.

Rocket Lab announced the award May 8. The contract’s value was not disclosed.

Rocket Lab's founder and CEO, Peter Beck, noted the contract award during a first quarter earnings call, and described it this way:

“That program is really at the very beginning of its development within the U.S. government,” Beck said. “So I think we’re very much in the experimental phase. And it’ll be interesting to see if that turns into a full requirement for an operational capability.”

This selection by the US Air Force follows what Beck called "the big news in the first quarter" - that Rocket Lab had been picked to compete for national security launch contracts.  

The Space Systems Command announced on March 27 that Rocket Lab and Stoke Space will be eligible to compete against established players Blue Origin, SpaceX, and United Launch Alliance (ULA) in the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 program. This indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract structure allows the selected companies to bid on launch service orders through 2029, with at least 30 missions expected to be awarded – totaling an estimated $5.6 billion in task orders.

That's quite a group of companies to be included with - and they've earned their place.  It was under 11 months ago that their Electron light-lift rocket became the first commercially developed rocket to reach 50 launches.  Plus, almost exactly two years ago, they announced their the Hypersonic Accelerator Suborbital Test Electron (HASTE) program that has already completed several missions for the US Space Force.

Illustration of Rocket Lab's Neutron cargo delivery payload.  Image credit: Rocket Lab

Neutron, designed to lift up to 13,000 kg to low Earth orbit, remains on schedule for its inaugural launch in 2025, Beck said. The company reports that both launch pad construction at Wallops Island, Virginia, and rocket development continue to progress as planned.

NASA looks at reducing the ISS operating expenses

With the release of NASA's first 2026 "skinny budget" last week, one of the glaringly obvious things was that, like every agency of the Federal Government, they were going to face a budget cut rather than staying the same or even still growing but growing slower.  The relevant "money quote" from there was this:

The tradeoff of more money for the moon and Mars is less money for the ISS, but the budget still commits to flying it until 2030. "The Budget reduces the space station’s crew size and onboard research," the document states. "Crew and cargo flights to the station would be significantly reduced. The station’s reduced research capacity would be focused on efforts critical to the Moon and Mars exploration programs."  

More details on what, when, and all those details made headlines today in an Ars Technica overview titled, "NASA scrambles to cut ISS activity due to budget issues."    

• Reducing the size of the crew complement of Crew Dragon missions from four to three, starting with Crew-12 in February 2026
• Extending the duration of space station missions from six to eight months

These sound like minor adjustments.  A reduction in crew assigned to a mission on the ISS of 25% in itself probably doesn't save 25% of NASA's operating expenses, because those astronauts will remain at NASA - unless they're not telling us there will be a RIF (Reduction In Force) in the astronaut corps.  

Extending crew missions from six to eight months will save some money in launch costs, but while I don't believe that's a big cost contributor, going from half year missions to two thirds of a year means going from four crewed launches to three launches in two years, which is absolutely going to cut the number of launches before the ISS gets de-orbited.  In the big picture sense, yes, it seems that less work will be accomplished on the ISS.

"The Budget reduces the space station’s crew size and onboard research, preparing for a safe decommissioning of the station by 2030 and replacement by commercial space stations," stated the budget request for fiscal year 2026. "Crew and cargo flights to the station would be significantly reduced. The station’s reduced research capacity would be focused on efforts critical to the Moon and Mars exploration programs."

The president's budget proposal document linked in that paragraph estimates this would save $508 million from a budget of about $3 billion annually to support the ISS - roughly a 17% cut.  

Coincidentally (hah!) this matches plans Roscosmos has for its Soyuz launches to the ISS.  Beginning with the Soyuz MS-27 mission launched last month, Russia has extended the duration of flights to eight months.

It needs to be said that this is probably less final than such budget ideas usually are this early in the process.  Add to the usual uncertainties that NASA doesn't have an administrator yet, so this is all preliminary and may unfold differently.  

The decision to fly fewer than a full complement of astronauts is not consistent, for example, with the goals of the Trump White House nominee to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman.

He spoke in favor of "maximizing" science on the space station during his confirmation hearing last month. In subsequent answers to written questions, Isaacman reaffirmed this position.

"My priority would be to maximize the remaining value of the ISS before it is decommissioned," Isaacman wrote. "We must prioritize the highest-potential science and research that can be conducted on the station—and do everything possible to 'crack the code' on an on orbit economy."

NASA Astronauts (from left) Nichole Ayers and Anne McClain work together at the International Space Station’s Port-4 truss structure to install a modification kit readying the orbital outpost for a future rollout solar array.  Photo taken May 1, 2025.   Image credit: NASA

A couple of small SpaceX stories

It's a slow news day, and as I wait for tonight's SpaceX launch, a couple of small stories caught my eye. 

Starbase at Boca Chica, Texas, has voted to become a city.  

A small city.   

On Saturday, eligible residents—mostly SpaceX employees—voted 212 to 6 to incorporate a 1.6-square-mile patch of Cameron County, Texas, as the municipality of Starbase, according to results published by the county.

The source article doesn't say what the new city's population is, but I tend to think it's probably more than the 218 people who voted in the election.  Starbase is where every Starship test we've seen has been launched from, and the other news item about them today - that the FAA has cleared them to have 25 Starship launches per year - those launches will be from Starbase.  

Starbase serves as the launch site for SpaceX’s rocket program, which holds contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense to return astronauts to the moon and eventually reach Mars. The new Starbase city is led by Mayor Bobby Peden, SpaceX’s vice president of Texas test and launch operations. Starbase City also has two commissioners with ties to SpaceX, who will oversee planning, taxation, and local governance. Starbase’s new Type C city status allows a property tax of up to 1.5%, per the Texas Municipal League. 

One of the stories around this is that SpaceX had wanted the ability to close the beach access road more often, or scheduled more to their liking.  If you watch the weekly updates from the groups that report on Starbase, you'll notice they do a lot of the work that involves moving large things around the base late at night or before dawn.  That's one way of minimizing how much they annoy the people going to the beach.  Beach access will be Starbase city's equivalent of an annoying pebble in your shoe that you can't just get rid of.  The ability to shut the roads to the beach that Cape Canaveral Space Force Station has just doesn't seem likely, the way I read this.    

Photo of Starbase launch area. The sign is relatively new, and is reflected in a pond right in front of the wall it's mounted on.  Image source: Teslarati 

SpaceX has preliminary plans for the first Starships going to Mars.

Just short of two months ago, Elon Musk let interviewers know when he thinks the first Starship missions to Mars will fly.  There isn't a specific calendar date, but it will be in the next launch window to Mars close to the end of 2026.  The first missions will be unmanned, robotic missions, and the robots will be Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robots.   

“Starship departs for Mars at the end of next year, carrying Optimus,” Musk said. “If those landings go well, then human landings may start as soon as 2029, although 2031 is more likely.”  

If, like me, you're used to thinking that those launch windows to Mars happen every two years.  That's approximately every two years; the 2026 window is open at the end of calendar '26, while the '29  window is in the beginning of the year, a little over two years after launch.  

There's no real data on what the mission might involve, but just getting there is quite an accomplishment.  Sending an Optimus robot makes sense to me. 

What goes up, must come down*

In 1972, the former Soviet Union launched an ambitious mission to Venus called Cosmos 482.   That mission fell apart in Earth orbit.  As I read the story put together, the upper stage failed to complete its mission.  Parts of the payload were left in Earth orbit, specifically the spacecraft's lander module/capsule intended to parachute to the surface of Venus.  

Read that date again.  It's 53 years since that launch.  Why is this even a lead-in to a story?  People who track things in orbit say the Cosmos 482 lander is going to come back to Earth soon.  According to Marco Langbroek of SatTrackCam in the Netherlands says:

"As this is a lander that was designed to survive passage through the Venus atmosphere, it is possible that it will survive reentry through the Earth atmosphere intact, and impact intact. There are many uncertain factors in this though, including that this will be a long shallow reentry trajectory and the age of the object," observes Langbroek, who now pegs the current nominal forecast for its reentry on May 10, plus/minus 2.2 days. 

What goes up must come down, right?  Another amateur satellite tracker, also from the Netherlands, goes down a different road and takes photos of satellite.

Meanwhile, a second satellite tracker Ralf Vandebergh, also of the Netherlands, has snagged a first set of images of only the capsule in Earth orbit. "We see a clear compact ball! This set is already fantastic, I think," he said. 

Telescopic images of the Soviet Cosmos 482 Venus descent craft in Earth's orbit taken by satellite tracker Ralf Vandebergh of the Netherlands. (Image credit: Ralf Vandebergh)

If it's too small to read for you, in the lower middle of the picture it says the telescope is a 0.25m Newtonian, or just about a 10" mirror. It doesn't give more details, but that's not a big, observatory-class telescope.  Lots of amateur astronomers have 10" reflectors.  Mine is out in the shop.

Vandebergh notes that the Cosmos 482 is roughly 80 miles (130 kilometers) closer than the Starlink bus which, according to data, is around 1.3 meters by 2.7 meters.  Clearly, the Starlink bus looks bigger than the Cosmos reentry vehicle, despite being farther away. 

"Several frames seems to confirm what I thought to see in the 2014 images, [that] there is a compact ball but several frames show a weak elongated structure at one particular side of the ball," Vandebergh added. He has speculated in the past it was possible that this might be the parachute that came out.
...
"It is not impossible that the object is tumbling," Vandebergh notes, "so the chute would be sometimes visible," assuming that it is the chute. He cautioned that more time is needed to better analyze what’s showing up in the imagery.

That best analysis of the imagery is a work in progress, Vandebergh concluded, so stay tuned!

* - and since I picked a title that's the first words of a very famous song from the late '60s I have to include this.  

The problem with AI hardly being talked about

There's a big problem with AI that just isn't getting talked about enough.  The vast majority of stuff we read about AI is how it's going to help with every problem, or take every job, depending on which way they look at it.  We're all going to have an AI servant, or Master, again depending on which way they look at it.

The real issue, the existential problem is that AI sucks so much power, they're going to black out the rest of humanity.  It will never get to the point of being really useful without truly enormous increases in power generation.  Perhaps you've seen the story at Microsoft has repaired and gotten the Three Mile Island nuclear power station back online for their AI power needs - and will get exclusive access to all the power it can generate.  There have been similar stories around the world.  

Friday, we learned that Eric Schmidt - the former CEO of Google - has bought Relativity space apparently in preliminary design for data centers in orbit, to get access to the solar power.  

We know this because Schmidt appeared before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce during a hearing in April, speaking on the future of AI and US competitiveness. Among the topics raised then was the need for more electricity—both renewable and non-renewable—to power data centers that will facilitate the computing needs for AI development and applications. Schmidt noted that an average nuclear power plant in the United States generates 1 gigawatt of power.

Then he rattled off some numbers that might blow your mind or cause your eyes to bleed. 

"People are planning 10 gigawatt data centers," Schmidt said. "Gives you a sense of how big this crisis is. Many people think that the energy demand for our industry will go from 3 percent to 99 percent of total generation. One of the estimates that I think is most likely is that data centers will require an additional 29 gigawatts of power by 2027, and 67 more gigawatts by 2030. These things are industrial at a scale that I have never seen in my life."

AI applications consume an enormous amount of computing power. A single ChatGPT query consumes approximately 10 times more energy than a Google search does. The US energy industry is not well prepared for this kind of dramatic growth in energy demand, as power consumption over the last decade has increased by about 0.5 percent a year. Data centers also consume significant amounts of water for cooling.

There is no way our society could get 29 gigawatts more power generation from reactors, burning gas, oil or anything built in two years (by '27).  Which says another 67 more gigawatts in three more years just isn't happening, either.  Which raises the reasonable question of how does Eric Schmidt get there?  First off, he doesn't need to.  He needs to power his business, not the entire AI industry.  

If he's going to try to build power plants and data centers in space, that spawns a bunch of other problems, starting with how to get that much stuff into space - which seems to explain why Schmidt bought Relativity Space.  He needs big, reusable rockets and a lot of flights of them.  The biggest rocket, although not yet operational, is Starship.  I think the odds of him buying a huge number of Starship flights aren't very good, but while it's a small number, it's better than the odds of him buying SpaceX itself.  Yeah, no. 

The Blue Origin's New Glenn is smaller, not a whole lot closer to flying lots of missions than Starship and Blue is also owned by a billionaire.  Again, not likely.  ULA's Vulcan rocket is expensive, and it's already behind its predicted launch manifest.  Rocket Lab's Neutron vehicle is coming soon, but it's the smallest of these and may not be large enough for Schmidt's ambitions.

That leaves the Terran R being developed by Relativity Space, which has appeared here a couple of times.

If fully realized, Terran R would be a beastly launch vehicle capable of launching 33.5 metric tons to low-Earth orbit in expendable mode—more than a fully upgraded Vulcan Centaur—and 23.5 tons with a reusable first stage.  If you were a billionaire seeking to put large data centers into space and wanted control of launch, Relativity is probably the only game in town.

I know of no visualization graphics for orbiting power farms that would be powered by photovoltaics and radiate their waste heat into space, although one would be great here.

Solving launch is just one of the challenges this idea faces, of course. How big would these data centers be? Where would they go within an increasingly cluttered low-Earth orbit? Could space-based solar power meet their energy needs? Can all of this heat be radiated away efficiently in space? Economically, would any of this make sense?

These are not simple questions. But Schmidt is correct that the current trajectory of power and environmental demands created by AI data centers is unsustainable. It is good that someone is thinking big about solving big problems.

Relativity Space's current computer rendering of their Terran R, full vehicle and landed booster.  Pretty much impossible to guess the size.  Image Credit: Relativity Space

It's Star Wars Day

My brain fart of the day was thinking it was the fourth on Saturday and not the third.  I caught on fairly late in the day when I had to actually think about the date. 

It just got to be time to say, "May the fourth be with you," and all.  

I was going to say that I haven't seen any Star Wars content since the last trilogy, episodes 7, 8 and 9 - excuse me, episodes VII, VIII and IX - with Daisy Ridley (Rey Skywalker),  Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), John Boyega (Finn) and many more.  That's what I originally thought, but it's not really all.  I watched the Rogue One "prequel" movie, the original Andor series on Disney+/Hulu streaming, the Obi Wan Kenobi series, the first two Mandalorian series and probably more that I can't remember now.  I see the second Andor season is playing, although I haven't caught a minute of it, and something called the Mandalorian and Grogu looks like a full feature film that's coming in 2026.

But Kylo Ren is the only Star Wars character that has an internet meme about him.  The existence of Kylo Ren implies the existence of a Kylo Stimpy. 

Image source: Imgflip

The White House “skinny” for NASA is out

The White House released its 2026 “skinny” budget by agency Friday morning, May 2nd.  A "skinny" budget is just another term for top-line, total numbers for agencies and their programs, with little content on specific programs.  We just know that Ars Technica's headline on their story says the agency, "seeks to end SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway." 

The big picture is that the budget is cut a bit more from the preliminary budget number we saw in mid-April of an overall cut by 20 percent, which talked about the overall total of $25 billion being cut to $20 billion.  Today's numbers are a bit more aggressive; from 25 to $18.8 billion.  

The big cuts talked about in that April article were to the science programs of NASA, arguably the most productive programs with more missions to brag about than the manned side.  That hasn't changed much.  

These include a $2.265 billion reduction in Space science and a $1.161 billion reduction in Earth science. Perhaps the most notable cancellation here is the Mars Sample Return mission, which the budget proposal says will be achieved by human missions to Mars.

In fairness, the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission was effectively cancelled in 2023.  In September of that year, NASA received a report from an independent review board saying that the Mars Sample Return Mission was unworkable in its current form and wasn't feasible on the schedule and costs they were working under.  They started another series of proposals and bids to come up with a mission they could afford and had a decent chance of working.  By this past January, that looked to essentially be a dead end. 

The new statement that they'll fold MSR into early manned missions to Mars may be the only way it gets done. 

The Budget phases out the grossly expensive and delayed Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule after three flights," the document states. "SLS alone costs $4 billion per launch and is 140 percent over budget. The Budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions."

As a reminder, NASA has contracted with both SpaceX and Blue Origin to develop reusable landers for the Moon, and both of these systems include vehicles to move from Earth orbit to the Moon.  

It seems to me that the major change in this budget proposal is the first mention of funding for manned missions to Mars. 

"By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient," the document states.

Under the Trump administration, NASA will seek to reach both the Moon and Mars. The goal, stated in the document, is to refocus NASA "on beating China to the Moon and putting the first human on Mars." Unfortunately, there is no information on what these "Mars-focused programs" will be. Some of this new funding would almost certainly go to SpaceX. The company, founded by Trump ally Elon Musk, explicitly focuses on establishing human settlements on Mars.

The tradeoff of more money for the moon and Mars is less money for the ISS, but the budget still commits to flying it until 2030. "The Budget reduces the space station’s crew size and onboard research," the document states. "Crew and cargo flights to the station would be significantly reduced. The station’s reduced research capacity would be focused on efforts critical to the Moon and Mars exploration programs."

It seems reasonable to me.  We can't increase spending every year and we can't keep adding to our debt.  We've all bitched about the horrifically bad SLS but the reason these programs happen is that cost plus jobs both enable cheating and reward it, yet we find NASA leaders want more cost plus and fewer fixed price contracts.  Last August in a post about "Boeing's SLS - There's Nothing Like It" there was a link to an article about Boeing's bad quality control and manufacturing.  The report points out the root cause of these issues is that “Boeing’s quality control issues are largely caused by its workforce having insufficient aerospace production experience. The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that the contractor will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards.”  

In refusing to penalize Boeing for these quality issues, NASA and Deputy Associate Administrator Catherine Koerner are actually rewarding Boeing for these quality issues. This is a "cost plus" contract.  It pays for all of Boeing's expenses, plus a fee. That style contract is incentivizing things like hiring the untrained and unqualified workforce. Need some welders? Go find some winos that have never been within 10 feet of a welding setup. If it takes more time and the stage needs to be scrapped and rebuilt - you make money on it instead of paying for it. 

Artemis I mission during one of its trips to the pad that didn't result in flying. NASA Photo.

NASA Swaps a 10 year old engine off Artemis II...

We've commented many times that SLS has jokingly been said to refer to the "Shuttles' Leftover Shit" - to point out that many parts of the booster are not just Shuttle designs, but hardware that had actually flown on Shuttle missions - and would have flown again.  Prominent examples are the four liquid fueled RS-25 engines on the SLS core, all of which have flown.  

A couple of weeks ago, ground teams at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida removed one of the four main engines from the Space Launch System rocket slated to send four astronauts on a voyage around the Moon next year.

The kicker here is they replaced a 10 year old engine with one that last flew 14 years ago and is closer to 17 years old.

NASA officials ordered the removal of one of the massive rocket's RS-25 main engines after discovering a hydraulic leak on the engine's main oxidizer valve actuator, which controls the flow of super-cold liquid oxygen propellant into the engine's main combustion chamber, an agency spokesperson told Ars.

In its place, technicians installed another RS-25 engine from NASA's inventory to the bottom of the rocket's core stage, which is standing vertical on its mobile launch platform inside the cavernous Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy.

Because this is only the second SLS launch vehicle to be built and readied for launch, this is the first time NASA has replaced a main engine.  The space agency earmarked each RS-25 engine for the first four flights of the Space Launch System rocket a decade ago.  This is the first time that list has been changed.   Replacing the engine frees the team to work on the engine in parallel to preparing for the launch, and barely affects the amount of time it takes to prepare for this one.  

This view shows the Artemis II core stage being worked on in their factory in New Orleans before being shipped to Florida.  The bottom right engine is Engine 2063, the one being replaced.  Image credit: NASA

The engine removed from the Artemis II rocket—serial number E2063—was built at NASA's Stennis Space Center by Aerojet Rocketdyne, now part of L3Harris, a Florida-based tech company and defense contractor. Technicians finished constructing the engine in 2015. It was the last RS-25 built using leftover parts, such as turbopumps, that flew on the Space Shuttle, but the fully assembled engine has never flown before.

In its place, NASA installed E2061 into the Engine 4 position on the Artemis II core stage. This engine was the final one built for the shuttle. NASA certified the engine for flight in 2008, and it flew twice in 2010 and 2011.

Shuttles' Leftovers?  At the end of the Shuttle program, NASA had 14 previously-flown engines and enough leftover parts to build another two.  With four engines per SLS core, the 16 total engines will fly four Artemis missions.  Artemis doesn't recover boosters or other hardware, so they just get thrown away - dropped into the Atlantic ocean.

This means NASA must purchase more RS-25 engines from L3Harris' Aerojet Rocketdyne at a staggering cost of $100 million per unit, according to a 2023 report from NASA's inspector general. The watchdog projected that each SLS rocket flying with brand-new RS-25 engines will cost $2.5 billion.

This is probably the biggest reason why SLS is most definitely not the future.  It can't be.   SLS missions are estimated to cost $4.4 billion (without the Exploration Upper Stage to get its biggest payloads; it has never been built); Falcon Heavy launches cost $178 million.  SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can only lift about 2/3 of the payload of the SLS so two Falcon Heavy launches at $356 million are required to put as much mass into orbit as one SLS.  It's probably still not an easy, cheap way to get rid of the SLS; I bet there's a bunch of little things that need to be modified or fully redesigned if they were to switch to Falcon Heavy, and switching to Starship is less clear to me. 

Isaacman's nomination clears Senate committee

On the journey to being accepted as NASA's next administrator, Jared Isaacman passed the next big hurdle today, being confirmed by the Commerce committee, where he had his first appearance back on April 9th.  Far from unanimous, the vote was 19-9 with the "nay" votes coming from Democratic senators.  The next step is a full senate vote.  It could be within a couple of days, but probably more likely to be in weeks.  

However, some key Democrats voted in favor of Isaacman, including the ranking member of the committee, Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. Before the vote, Cantwell said she appreciated that a candidate like Isaacman, with his background in business and private spaceflight, could bring new ideas and energy to the space agency. 

As a Senator from Washington, one of the biggest employers in her state is Boeing, which "just happens" to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the SLS and Artemis programs.  Both Cantwell and Texas Senator Ted Cruz are big advocates of Artemis and both emphasized that their support for Isaacman was based on his public support for the Artemis Program to return humans to the Moon.

"A commitment to keeping on with the Moon mission is the key requirement we have to have in this position," Cantwell said. "While it's not clear to me where the Trump administration ultimately will end up on the NASA budget, and I have concerns about some of their proposed cuts today, Mr. Isaacman seems to be committed to the current plan. I think this is a very big competitive issue for the United States of America. That competitiveness is not just a goal; it's a reality that we may some day wake up and find ourselves falling behind."

While both Isaacman and Trump have talked about Mars and the Moon almost as equals, it seems that congress considers the Moon to be the higher priority simply because of the visible "space race 2.0" with China.  Isaacman's direct quote is: 

I believe pursuing both lunar and Martian objectives is not inherently cost-prohibitive nor expressly prohibited by existing federal statute should such efforts not detract from the near-term objective of returning to the Moon first.  There is meaningful hardware commonality across the existing Artemis Human Landing System (HLS) providers. For instance, both contractors are already required to validate reusable heavy-lift launch capabilities—technologies essential for transporting mass beyond low Earth orbit, whether toward the Moon or Mars. In fact, many of the technologies and capabilities NASA is already investing in—such as surface nuclear power systems, nuclear electric propulsion, and nuclear thermal propulsion—are highly relevant for Mars exploration, though they remain underfunded and subscale.

Jared Isaacman, who goes by the name "Rook" in practically every other reference to him on this blog, on his last private mission to orbit, Polaris Dawn in September '24. You can see his shirt is embroidered "Rook Isaacman" on his right in this picture - just right of his thumb. Credit: Polaris Program

Small Space News Story Roundup 58

Two stories:  one on the positive side, one on the negative.

On the positive side, Atmos Space Cargo's First Test 

Back in the April 22nd followup to the first launch of their PHOENIX 1 reentry vehicle, while everything Atmos  publicly stated about the mission was positive, we were left with the fact that they weren't able to photograph and document that everything survived.  All of that came down to being because the main payload of the Bandwagon 3 mission, a Korean Synthetic Aperture Radar sat caused what they called a last minute change to where the PHOENIX 1 would splashdown.  About 1/4 of the globe west of the original splashdown point; from Reunion Island off the SE coast of Africa to 1200 miles off the SE coast of Brazil.  

Space.com reports today that the initial somewhat optimistic views that the mission had been a success are actually correct.  

Phoenix 1 was tasked with demonstrating some key reentry tech, such as the capsule's inflatable heat shield. Atmos also aimed to collect information about the flight and record scientific data from the customer experiments that flew aboard Phoenix 1 as well. All of these objectives were indeed met during the flight, according to Atmos.

I was drawn to the article by the title, "See photos snapped in space by Europe's 1st private reentry capsule" there's only two in the article, and the one that I think is more important is a victim of the terrible lighting that happens pretty often in space missions.  I tweaked the mid-range brightness values up a bit in a photo editor.

Phoenix 1 (left) separates from the upper stage of its Falcon 9 during the Bandwagon-3 mission. (Image credit: Atmos Space Cargo)

"Phoenix 1 was a milestone mission that showcased the incredible capabilities of our team," Marta Oliveira, Atmos' co-founder and chief operating officer, said in an April 23 update. "This mission proves that we’re not only solving the technical challenge of re-entry — we're laying the groundwork for a future where space is accessible, testable and impactful for innovation here on Earth."

On the negative side, Firefly's Alpha rocket had a very rarely seen failure on its mission today

The 6th launch of Firefly's Alpha rocket had a failure just about two and a half minutes into the flight, just after the first stage shut down and dropped away from the upper stage.  This left the upper stage unable to complete the mission of putting an experimental satellite into orbit for Lockheed Martin.  The payload never made orbit.

Alpha suffered an anomaly shortly after its two stages separated, which led to the loss of the nozzle extension for the upper stage's single Lightning engine. This significantly reduced the engine's thrust, dooming the mission, Firefly said in an update several hours after launch.

"Initial indications showed Alpha's upper stage reached 320 km [199 miles] in altitude. However, upon further assessment, the team learned the upper stage did not reach orbital velocity, and the stage and payload have now safely impacted the Pacific Ocean in a cleared zone north of Antarctica," the update reads.

I've watched two videos of the mission, focusing mostly on the view after the stage separation, and it's very clear that something took out the bell-shaped nozzle on the upper stage but there never seemed to be video showing it.  The upper stage engine continued to burn but with no nozzle to concentrate the thrust in the proper direction, it didn't have enough thrust to get to the proper orbit.   Strangely, the videos featured someone from Firefly explaining what we were seeing and I never heard her say a word about the nozzle (which Firefly's statement called a nozzle extension) not looking right.  

Firefly is one of just a handful of active US launch companies with rockets that have reached low-Earth orbit, but its Alpha rocket hasn't established a reliable track record. In six flights, Alpha has amassed just two unqualified successes. Two prior Alpha launches deployed their payloads in lower-than-planned orbits, and the rocket's debut test flight in 2021 failed soon after liftoff.

Now, Alpha has again missed its aim and didn't reach orbit at all.

Firefly argues that their Alpha has a payload capacity in a niche that's ideal for satellites too large to fly with Rocket Lab or too small to merit a dedicated flight with SpaceX.  They seem to have the contracts to back that up.

NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Reconnaissance Office, the US Space Force, and several more commercial customers have also reserved slots on Firefly's launch schedule. With these contracts, Firefly has the fourth-largest launch confirmed backlog of any US launch company, following SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, and Rocket Lab.

I think that last sentence should contain, "Firefly has the fourth-largest confirmed launch backlog of any US launch company," but more importantly, if they keep losing 2/3 of what they launch, that "fourth-largest confirmed launch backlog" won't be there much longer.

NASA's next helicopter clears next major milestone

The Dragonfly helicopter headed for Saturn's moon Titan has very little in common with the Mars helicopter, Ingenuity.  Ingenuity was small, light, and lightly powered - which makes sense when you consider the environment it had to work in.  One source I've seen said flying on Mars is equivalent to flying at 100,000 feet here on Earth.  Titan, while smaller than Mars, has an atmosphere that's denser than ours, with a surface pressure 50 percent higher.  The combination of having lower surface gravity and a denser atmosphere seems to make the task of flying on Titan easier.  

Ingenuity has two propellers and is powered by batteries on board, charged by photovoltaic panels.  Dragonfly is a nuclear-powered, car-sized, eight propeller drone.  That's right, instead of batteries, this helicopter ship is powered by Radioisotope Thermal Generators, RTGs, like the Voyager probes. 

An illustration of NASA's Dragonfly rotorcraft soaring in the skies of Saturn’s largest moon, Titan. (Image credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Steve Gribben)

The milestone?  Dragonfly passed its Critical Design Review, NASA announced on Thursday (April 24).

"Passing this mission milestone means that Dragonfly's mission design, fabrication, integration and test plans are all approved, and the mission can now turn its attention to the construction of the spacecraft itself," a NASA statement reads.

Because of the necessity to launch at times essentially chosen by the planetary alignments - like flying to all the planets - Dragonfly is currently penciled in July 2028 to fly to Saturn on a Falcon Heavy from the Kennedy Space Center.  As far out as Saturn is, its orbital period (one Saturnian year) is 29.5 Earth years, I'd guess if they can't make it by 2028, the next date will be around two weeks later if they delay until 2029.  The trip to Saturn will take almost seven years.  The mission's goal is to spend more than three years studying areas across Titan's frigid and diverse surface.  Considering how these deep space missions historically have lasted many times longer than the plan, we can hope Dragonfly does the same.

 

EDIT 0824 AM EDT on 4/29: Thanks to commenter Malatrope for pointing out that I missed a big mistake in the first paragraph, saying it was easier to fly on Mars when I should have said Titan!  My proofreading team will be whipped at the earliest opportunity.

 

Solar Cycle 25/26 Update

A bit ahead of being a six month update; my last update was last December 28th, but there's a couple of things that are interesting to note.  

To begin with, though, the regular "formalities" are that most of this information comes from a video talk delivered to a group I belong to of VHF ("six meter band") aficionados on groups.io, called the Front Range 6 meter group.  Originally a group along the "front range" area in Colorado, they now have members from around the world.  As with every such talk I've watched, it's delivered by Dr. Scott McIntosh, formerly with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).  In the last year, Scott has moved to Lynker Space in the private sector.

The first thing is that cycle 26 has begun so we have two cycles in progress now and will continue that way until cycle 25 dies completely.  In December's talk, I used this screen capture from his previous talk showing that he had evidence that cycle 26 has begun.  Perhaps the biggest improvement to forecasting Dr. McIntosh has introduced is a way of identifying the exact time when the new sunspot cycle starts.  That's noted when new sunspots happen at very far northern or southern latitudes and have a magnetic polarity opposite the current cycle.  The diagonals (red and blue) show the progress of the spots in each cycle and the slopes show how the spots progress from higher to lower latitudes as the cycle progresses.  The four belts vertically  are implying the latitudes of the activity, with the solar equator in the middle.

A regular inclusion in these updates is the SSN or Smoothed Sunspot Number, as tracked by the NOAA Solar Cycle Progression chart from their web site. 

A new feature in this plot is colored bands in the future, showing 25, 50 and  75% predicted ranges.  You'll notice that the absolute peak of cycle 25 occurred during 2024.  There were some days with very high solar flux in '24: the highest peak was in August as shown here: each black dot is one month, and the last dot in this plot is March's number (the plot shows "updated 2025-04-02" bottom right).  I was regularly in the shack monitoring 6m activity much of end of '24 and saw something I've never seen in my life, spots of ham stations in Alaska being reported within a few hundred miles of me.  I've never heard an Alaskan signal make the last hop to Florida (on 6m), although a friend in Tennessee heard one, one time.  Both of us consider that a once in a lifetime moment.  It was last December 1.  We haven't had solar flux numbers like that since then but the highest Solar Flux measured in cycle 25 was in August of 2024.  

Finally, a plot I’ve shown regularly which shows the Smoothed Sunspot Number (SSN) for the last five cycles back to 1976. I like this plot because it’s my ham radio biography in one plot. I was first licensed in February 1976 (the blue curve), so every cycle I’ve been through is on this plot (and I was a shortwave listener for the cycle before that).  The plot is posted to Space Weather News (bottom of the page) but is created by a separate site, Solen.info.  I've regularly reported that while cycle 25 has been stronger than cycle 24, pink in this plot, that was the weakest cycle in the last hundred years, but 25 hasn't exceeded cycle 23 once.  So stronger than 24 is better than equaling it, or being weaker than it, but it's a long way from a good solar cycle.

It still hasn't exceeded cycle 23, but it equaled 23 for one graph square and then the recorded cycle 23 SSN out performed it and stayed higher than cycle 25. 

And just between us geeks, I absolutely hate the way the horizontal axis is labeled on this.  It divides the scale into groups of 10 "Months after cycle start", which is fine, but then notice that between numbers, like from  50 to 60 or any group of 10, it has SEVEN minor divisions.  Who on Earth would think to divide 10 months into SEVEN lines?  10/7 of a month?  Why not 10 minor divisions so each line was one month?  Or even five, so each one was two months?

Is there no chance of hearing Alaska down here again - in this cycle?  One thing  that's in our favor is that cycle 25 is looking very asymmetric.  We thought it was peaking 20 months ago around 40 months into the cycle, but after remaining at relatively low SSN, has been moving toward a peak farther out (in time).  What we don't know is how much longer it will stay around where it is now.  The second plot, on the cycle's progress pretty much predicts the SSN will be lower by 2026 after perhaps another quarter or half year around where it currently is.

To borrow that wonderful quote from physicist Niels Bohr, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”