moon

In its goal of reaching the Moon in 2030, China has hit the table: it has demonstrated the potential of its technology

by

The race for the human return to the Moon has officially entered a new operational phase with China successfully executing the first “lit” flight of its heavy rocket new generation: Long March-10 (LM-10). A test that has not only validated its propulsion capacity, but also certifies the safety of its future crew in the most hostile launch environment. Where. This milestone, achieved since Wenchang launch pad (Hainan), places the Chinese lunar program on a firm and technically verified trajectory to meet its strategic objective: putting humans on the lunar surface before 2030. The litmus test. The essay recently made marks a turning point, since, unlike the tests static or scale models from previous yearsthis has been a real flight with ignition. The LM-10 took off in a prototype configuration with the goal of achieving the maximum dynamic pressure (Max-Q). In aerospace engineering, Max-Q is the critical moment during the climb where the aerodynamic forces on the vehicle structure are most violent. It is the “worst scenario” possible for an emergency that could threaten the safety of the crew, and it is precisely at that moment that the abort command was sent to the Mengzhou manned ship (the successor of the Shenzhou). In Xataka In silence, China is making giant strides in a race that until now it was not leading: space. There are differences. What distinguishes this essay from those carried out by other historical powers is the sophistication of the subsequent sequence. At first, the Mengzhou capsuleseparated from the rocket and activated its escape enginesmoving away from the “danger zone” at high speed, validating its ability to save the crew in extreme aerodynamic conditions. On the other hand, as the capsule descended toward a controlled splashdown, the first stage of the LM-10 rocket was not jettisoned. For the first time in a test of these characteristics in China, the stage continued its ascent briefly and then executed a controlled descent and landed in the sea. A success. This success simultaneously validates the structural integrity under maximum stress, the compatibility of the interfaces between rocket and ship, and the partial reusability of the system, a technological advance that brings China closer to the operational efficiency of companies such as SpaceX with Artemis. All this within a context where China and the United States ‘fight’ to see who is the first to return to the Moon. A change of concept. Wenchang’s success is just the tip of the spear of a much more complex system known as the CMSA’s “Earth-Space Transportation System for Manned Lunar Flights.” This architecture moves away from the “one giant shot” concept and opts for a two-launch and orbital rendezvous scheme. The three pillars. The first of them is the Long March-10a colossus approximately 92 meters high capable of placing about 70 tons in low Earth orbit and about 27 tons in lunar transfer orbit. The most interesting thing is that its modular design and the recovery capacity of the first stage are fundamental for the economic sustainability of the program, since the entire structure is recovered for subsequent tests and missions. The second pillar is Mengzhouwhich is designed for deep space missions and is larger and more capable than the current Shenzhou. Its development, which began conceptually around 2017-2018, has culminated in a modular vehicle capable of supporting atmospheric reentry at lunar return speeds. The third is a dedicated lunar landing module known as Lanyue waiting in lunar orbit. {“videoId”:”x96edv6″,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”China’s space suit to go to the Moon”, “tag”:”China”, “duration”:”64″} Roadmap. This includes two separate launches of the LM-10: one to transport the Lanyue module and another for the crew on Mengzhou. The final objective is that both vehicles will perform a meeting maneuver and docking in lunar orbit before the taikonauts descend to the surface. Chronology of ambition. The path towards this 2026 flight has been methodical, characterized by a strategy of “short but quick steps” that began in 2013 with the first discussions and the development of prototypes. It was in 2020 when an 8-day orbital test flight was made using a Long March-5B and that validated the capsule’s heat shield and recovery systems. Finally, it was this month of February when the flight occurred with an abortion in Max-Q and recovery of the stage. If we look to the future, before the end of 2026, “zero altitude” abandonment tests and complete tests of the Lanyue lunar landing module are expected, all aimed at meeting the 2030 launch window. A duel of titans. The comparison between the United States and China is practically mandatory in these cases. While the United States relies on the raw power of the SLS Block 1a 98-meter and disposable colossus, China is committed to operational efficiency with the Long March-10. And although the Chinese rocket is a little less powerful, its design incorporates a reusable first stage, which reduces costs and is closer to the sustainability model that SpaceX has popularized in the West, contrasting with the immense expense per launch of the American system. On the other hand, NASA has opted for a hybrid and complex scheme: it launches the crew in the Orion capsule with the government SLS rocket, and then docks in lunar orbit with the Starship HLSa commercial lander from SpaceX. In contrast, China has chosen a more pragmatic “distributed architecture”: it will carry out two separate launches of the LM-10, one for the Lanyue lunar landing module and another for the crew on the Mengzhou spacecraft, which will meet directly in lunar orbit. In Xataka Starlink’s dominance in space begins to move: another company already has permission for a constellation of 4,000 satellites On their calendars. The US program, depending on multiple commercial suppliers and disruptive technologies (such as Starship’s in-orbit refueling), faces highly complex logistics that have accumulated delays for the Artemis III mission. In contrast, China’s centralized and vertical model maintains a firm and predictable roadmap to the year 2030. In this way, we are seeing two titanic powers with two different … Read more

This year more will be invested in data centers than what the US spent to reach the Moon

by

We are witnessing live a technological race that is no longer measured only in announcements or demonstrations, but in tangible investments that grow at a speed that is difficult to ignore. In the United States, and also in other regions, large companies are allocating increasing amounts of money to build and expand the infrastructure that supports the current deployment of artificial intelligence services and the expansion of computing capacity that these companies pursue. Some speak of excessive enthusiasm and even a possible bubblebut the money already invested is part of the economic reality of the sector, while the projected figures point to an even larger scale. The question, therefore, is not whether the bet exists, but how big it really is. The numbers. If the first step is to assume that the investment exists, the second is to quantify it precisely. Data collected by The Wall Street Journal They suggest that Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) could concentrate a joint expenditure of up to $670 billion in 2026 aimed at artificial intelligence infrastructure. We are talking about capital outlays associated with data centers, hardware and capacity expansion, not just “brick”. When a single annuity reaches that order of magnitude, the conversation shifts from expectations to measurable economic consequences. Dollars are not compared. What the analysis proposes is not a direct equivalence between amounts spent in different times, but rather a way of measuring the economic weight of each effort in its own historical context. Instead of adjusting old figures to current prices for inflation, the article uses the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) as a common reference for separate projects over time. That shift in focus shifts the conversation from absolute money to relative magnitude within the U.S. economy. And it is precisely there where the investment associated with artificial intelligence acquires a historical dimension that is difficult to ignore. The investments. Among the great economic milestones that are often used as historical references in the United States, there are episodes as different as the Louisiana Purchase, the railroad expansion of the 19th century or the construction of the interstate highway system, all of them with different relative weights within the economy of their time. Using that same metric, this effort has been estimated around the following magnitudes: Louisiana Purchase: 3% of GDP Railway expansion: 2% of GDP Interstate highways: 0.4% of GDP Apollo Program: 0.2% of GDP As we can see, the planned investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure is around 2.1% of GDP. It’s not the same, but. Historical parallelism functions as a scaling tool, not as institutional equivalence. The large projects with which the current moment is compared were, in many cases, public initiatives financed directly or indirectly by the federal State, while investment in AI infrastructure corresponds mainly to corporate spending. That distinction is important, however, from a strictly economic perspective, the relative size of the effort remains comparable. The State does not pay the main bill. That the bulk of investment is private does not mean that the public sector remains on the sidelines. It’s no secret that the U.S. government influences the pace and shape of deployment through regulatory decisions, permitting, energy planning, and federal land use for new data center infrastructure. This set of levers is not a substitute for corporate capital, and at the same time it fits with a broader strategy aimed at preserving American leadership in the global race for AI. Historical comparison. This ends up pointing out something deeper than a simple number: it indicates the type of priority that a society decides to give to certain technologies at a specific time. When investment in AI infrastructure reaches a relative weight comparable to that of major American economic milestones, reading transcends the technology sector and enters the strategic realm. Images | POT | freepik In Xataka | Daniela Amodei, co-founder of Anthropic: “studying humanities will be more important than ever”

The obsession with Mars disappears and the priority is now a “self-sustaining city” on the Moon

by

For nearly two decades, SpaceX’s mantra has been unequivocal: colonize Mars. The red planet was not just a destination, it was the reason for being of the company and one of the clearest objectives in Elon Musk’s mind. But this has completely changed, since Musk himself has confirmed what had been rumored among investors: priorities have changed to focus on something simpler. A new city. SpaceX has put the handbrake on immediate Martian colonization to focus all its efforts on a closer and more pragmatic objective: building a “self-sustaining city” on the Moon in less than 10 years. And the reason is not just economic, it is a question of pure and simple orbital physics. The window problem. The change of focus, as explained by Elon Musk himselfresponds to the need for quick results. In the case of aerospace engineering, the speed of development depends on how many times you can test, fail, and test again. And this is where Mars is a real logistical nightmare. As detailed, to travel to Mars efficiently you have to wait for the orbital alignment of the planets to occur, which happens once every 26 months. Something to which we must add a trip of approximately six months, so it is not easy to have missions in a row, but rather they would have to be spaced almost three years apart. The windows of the Moon. While Mars needs a large amount of time to deliver results, the Moon is much easier, since Elon Musk himself recognizes that the launch window is constant. Specifically, every 10 days approximately A new mission can be launched that has a travel time of just a few days. Musk summarizes it with industrial logic: the Moon allows us to iterate much faster. If the goal is to secure the future of civilization with a colony outside Earth, the lunar path is the fast track. A lunar city. The goal is not to put a flag back on the lunar surface, but to establish a city that is capable of growing on its own autonomously. According to ABC Newsthe plan involves prioritizing lunar missions with a possible first unmanned lunar landing around 2027, with a view to having that permanent presence in less than a decade. This finally aligns Musk’s personal interests with government contracts. Let’s not forget that SpaceX has a multi-million dollar contract with NASA to the Artemis programwhere the Starship HLS will be the vehicle in charge of lowering the astronauts to the lunar surface. By making the Moon SpaceX’s “civilization” priority, Musk ensures that the development of its giant rocket serves both its customers (NASA) and its new private roadmap. Among investors. Like any good company of this type, behind it is a large number of people who must be accountable and, above all, offer immediate benefits. In this case, SpaceX formally notified its investors last Friday about this change of course: unmanned missions to Mars, initially planned for the end of 2026, are postponed indefinitely. For Wall Street and the big funds, this turnaround is music to their ears for two key reasons. The first of them is that the Moon offers a modelable revenue narrative and deadlines that depend on signed contracts, as is the case with Artemis and NASA. The second is that investors need security so that they continue investing money in the company. In this case, this change of course protects the company’s astronomical valuationwhich seeks to consolidate itself in the billion-dollar club after the boost of xAIeliminating the immediate risk of a failed mission to Mars. What about Mars? This decision does not mean goodbye to the original dream of the company and of Musk himself, but rather it is a reality check. For now, Musk maintains the goal of trying to build a city on Mars within 5 to 7 years, but the narrative has changed: Mars is no longer the first critical step, but the second. In this way, the Moon will serve as a testing ground, a spaceport and, above all, as the place where humanity will learn to live outside of Earth without having to wait two years for supplies if something goes wrong. Images | SpaceX In Xataka | SpaceX is known for its rockets. What is less known is its growing and striking fleet of aircraft

Returning to the Moon before 2030 begins to seem like a political fantasy

by

This same week we learned that the Artemis II mission, which was to put humans around the Moon again, it had to be delayed. The old ghosts of the space program, as it is the complexity of liquid hydrogenhas once again been a blow to NASA, which is increasingly closer to SpaceX to delegate part of its space missions. Hydrogen as a cursed inheritance. As a reminder, all the problems with Artemis II have arisen during the general refueling test, since it had to be stopped when a leak was detected in the hydrogen fuel lines. For fans of the show, this sounds awfully familiar. They are faults traced to which The Artemis I mission has already suffered and that seem inherited from the Space Shuttle era. Liquid hydrogen, being the smallest molecule in existence, has an astonishing ease of escape through the slightest imperfection, a situation that has been recently aggravated by the extreme cold on test platforms. The dependence on SpaceX. While the SLS rocket shows signs of technical and budgetary fatigue, with Boeing threatening staff reductions amid this crisisNASA is forced to pivot increasingly toward the private sector. This is where SpaceX meets with open arms. The current plan is complex: the SLS must put Orion capsule in orbitwhich will then be coupled with the SpaceX human landing system (HLS) to go down to the lunar surface. However, the SLS delays put at risk the entire chain of missions that come after such as Artemis III that could go until 2028. It has its challenges. But SpaceX is not completely perfect, since for the Starship HLS to reach the Moon, it requires an orbital resupply maneuver that could involve up to 12 prior tanker flightsan unprecedented logistical complexity. Although Starship also faces its own challenges and delays, different sources indicate that is the only lander contracted with real capacity to operate before 2030. Although NASA has opened the door to Blue Origin for later missions seeking to diversify, today, without SpaceX, the lunar rhythm would collapse. Until exhaustion. While SLS struggles to overcome basic leaks, SpaceX is following its “break things to learn fast” philosophy. By the end of 2025, the company completed its eleventh test flightachieving a key milestone: the smooth and controlled splashdown of the upper stage in the Indian Ocean and the successful restart of the Raptor engines in a vacuum. This flight marked the end of the “V2” era. Now, SpaceX transitions to Starship V3, an even larger and more capable beast, designed specifically to meet Artemis’ payload requirements. But introducing a new vehicle involves new risks and time-consuming certifications. More than a rocket. We often forget that the Starship HLS is not just a transport vehicle; It will be the “home” of the astronauts on the lunar surface for a week, which further marks this dependence. Although it does not stop here, since SpaceX has completed SpaceX recently completed 49 crucial contract milestones for NASA that go beyond propulsion, including life support that will keep the astronauts alive. Although they have also managed to validate the system for the descent of the crew on the moon or the Raptor engines that have demonstrated their ability to ignite after being exposed to the deep cold of space. Dependency is a problem. With the current data on the table, the optimism of 2025 has evaporated, delaying the date of the different missions to return to the Moon. And although the SLS is currently a bottleneck, the immense complexity of the Starship operation, which requires an almost weekly launch chain, is the real wall against which Washington’s political dates crash. Images | SpaceX In Xataka |

The US consumed 60% of all the chips it produced to go to the Moon

by

In the context of the Cold War, developing an ambitious space program was more than just technological exploration and innovation: for the United States it meant demonstrating its hegemony over the USSR. And he took it very seriously: officially spent almost 26 billion dollars between 1960 and 1973 (the equivalent about $257 billion today). Before and after Apollo. Simply put, the Apollo program was colossal and it shows in both its achievements and its legacy. Because beyond the milestone of humanity’s arrival on the moon, the list of inventions he brought under the arm was impressive because either they are still used today or they laid the foundations for today’s technology. For example, although NASA did not invent freeze-dried foods, they did. gave them a twist to maintain its flavor and texture while reducing its weight. Also brought the refrigerated suits that are used today for people with multiple sclerosis and PBI as a star fireproof materialsomething they arrived at after the death of three astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire and which is today used in firefighter suits. Or the airless tires. If we focus on computing, the fly by wire It was a paradigm shift to embrace digital, the standard in today’s aviation. NASA changed the computer industry. And if food had to be lightened, stylizing the on-board computers was something providential. Plus, do it without compromising power. So they built the Apollo guidance computer with a promising but still little consolidated technology: integrated circuits with the first silicon chips. Yes, those that we have even found in the soup for decades. The Apollo program he did not invent the microchipbut it did make it possible have a huge supply. Much of the chip production went to NASA. In fact, in 1963 the Apollo project had already achieved take over 60% of US supply of chips. Bridging the distance, like what happens today with AI. The US army supported the proposal, which integrated chips into its missiles Minuteman II. The production contract fell into the hands of Texas Instrumentsforcing the industry to move from “artisanal” chip manufacturing to mass production. Towards total democratization. The combination between NASA and the Pentagon was the total catalyst for standardization and cost reduction. In fact, in 1962 a single microchip could cost at least 120 dollars. By ’68, prices had plummeted less than two dollars. This enormous need, together with the importance of their application in strategic sectors, caused both NASA and the army to demand absolute reliability of the chips from the companies behind them, such as Fairchild or Texas Instruments. This is, put them to tests like extreme temperatures or G-force. It was Moore’s law at its finest. NASA moved the industry forward a decade. The push from NASA and the Pentagon reduced the cost of microchips by 98% in less than 10 years. The result? That they went from cutting-edge technology to landing on more basic and modest electronics such as calculators. According to John Tylkoengineer and technological historian and current professor at MIT, if NASA had not existed we would still have integrated circuits and Moore’s Law would have been fulfilled… much later: “But perhaps we would not have had it in 1965. Maybe we would have had it a decade later.” In Xataka | Four astronauts are going to undertake an unprecedented journey to the Moon. They have no intention of stepping on it In Xataka | We have been deceived by the distances of the Solar System: the closest neighbor to Neptune is Mercury Cover | Flickr

In 2024 we feared that the asteroid YR4 would impact the Earth. Now NASA believes the Moon is threatened

by

For a few weeks at the beginning of 2025, the name 2024 YR4 became an absolute protagonist among the main institutions around the planet. It was no wonder, since this object, with an estimated size between 40 and 60 metersreached the level 3 on the Torino scalea milestone that we have not seen for a long time and that implies a probability of collision greater than 1% with the capacity to produce devastating local damage. We are saved. After this fear, science has managed to reach the conclusion that the Earth is safe now. However, the story of 2024 YR4 is not over, since the latest models suggest that, although it will avoid us, there is a non-negligible probability that it will end up crashing into the Moon. How we knew. Initially, NASA’s Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) held his breath in early 2025. The first observations showed a worrying scenario for the year 2032 with this possible impact, but the moment more attention began to be paid to this object it was seen that it was not going to end up on Earth. The key to being able to breathe a little calmer again lies in the ‘shoulders’ of the James Webb which began making observations in May 2025. The space telescope made it possible to refine the asteroid’s orbit with a 20% precision improvement, confirming that there is no risk of impact against our planetnor an orbital alteration of the Moon that could affect us secondarily. But by closing a door, the JWST opened a fascinating and destructive window: the probability that 2024 YR4 will impact the Moon has risen from 3.8% to 4.3%. The lunar judgment. According to studies recently published on arXiv, the key date is December 22, 2032. That day is where there is about a 1 in 23 chance that we will see a violent spectacle on the lunar surface with an impact that would release an energy of 6.5 megatons of TNT. This is something very relevant, since this great energy would generate a crater approximately one kilometer in diameter and the ejection of 100 million kilos of lunar debris with a cloud of material equivalent to the weight of about 20,000 elephants. From Earth. Logically, this impact, although it does not occur on the planet, the truth is that it will have important consequences and not exactly physical ones, but rather a visual phenomenon. The debris that will be ejected from the Moon could enter the Earth’s atmosphere some time later, generating an unprecedented meteor shower caused by a secondary impact. The use of technology. Over time, the European Space Agency has also validated this data, placing the size of the object more specifically between 53 and 67 meters and confirming the 4% probability of having an impact on the moon. Although logically we also have a 96% chance that it will completely pass from the Moon. But this asteroid has had a very positive point: it has vindicated the need to improve space detection tools. And right now these objects are hiding in the “blind spot” of the sun’s glare, although with this one we were lucky that the ATLAS system in Chile managed to detect it. A future mission. Given this limitation that we have, the ESA has seen it necessary to activate the NEOMIR missionsince if it had already been active, it would have detected the asteroid a month earlier, offering vital reaction time if the threat had been against the Earth and not against the Moon. And now what. For now, we have to wait. The asteroid has moved away in this case and will not be in an optimal position to make an observation again until 2028. It will be then that astronomers will be able to refine this 4.3% probability and tell us definitively whether we will spend Christmas 2032 looking at the Moon to see how a new crater forms live. Images | Mike Petrucci NASA Hubble Space Telescope In Xataka | Japan has lost a five-ton satellite in the most unusual way imaginable: “it fell” during launch

What are the chances that Artemis II will take off for the Moon on February 7 and everything that NASA must validate before

by

Since the Apollo 17 mission, in December 1972, humans have not returned to the Moon. It’s been 53 years since that last manned trip to the satellite, but that could soon change with Artemis II. Of course, it will not be a return to plant a flag and walk on the surface, as Eugene A. Cernan and Harrison H. “Jack” Schmitt did. To set foot on the Moon again (if the program continues as planned) We will still have to wait for Artemis III. What Artemis II proposes is something else: a manned lunar flybya large-scale validation mission and a return to Earth after testing a long list of critical systems. Technology has changed since the 1970s, and that makes this mission something special: not only because of what it represents on a symbolic level, but because of what it implies on a technical level. Artemis II is, in practice, the final exam before the moon landing. And hence the inevitable question: when is it released? As is often the case in the space sector, it is not enough to set a date on the calendar. The window depends on a combination of operational, logistical and meteorological factors, and the room for maneuver is more limited than it seems. Artemis II plays everything in very specific windows The first concept that should be clear is that of the launch window: the time interval during which a specific mission can take off. In the case of Artemis II, NASA has already published a calendar with 16 opportunities distributed between February and April. The first starts on Friday, February 6 at 9:41 p.m. (Eastern time in the United States), which in peninsular Spain is translated as Saturday the 7th at 03:41 in the morning. Artemis II release window schedule for early 2026 And those dates are not set at random. Artemis II requires millimeter orbital choreography: a lunar flyby trajectory, a translunar injection with narrow margins, a free return taking advantage of the satellite’s gravity, and a reentry profile that prioritizes safety and fault tolerance. With such a level of demand, it would be strange to have a broad and flexible calendar. In practice, these missions always move within fairly limited launch opportunities. Artemis II technical calendar: opening of each window, local and UTC times, and duration of each launch opportunity But the orbital schedule is not the only bottleneck. The launch complex itself imposes relevant restrictions. At 39B, the same one from which the Saturn Vthe spherical tanks used to store cryogenic propellant allow a limited number of attempts. Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are loaded into the core stage and upper stage on the same day of launch. And if the takeoff is canceled, you cannot try it again the next day as if nothing had happened: you have to wait. at least 48 hourss to try the process again. Jeremy Hansen, Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman and Christina Hammock Koch, next to the Orion capsule at the Kennedy Space Center (August 8, 2023) If today there is talk of a near launch it is because the mission has already been closing important milestones. The SLS rocket and the Orion capsule are already on the launch pad. They arrived last January 17 after a slow transfer, of about 12 hours, from the Vehicle Assembly Building. From there, the teams began the tasks of connection and integration with the terrestrial facilities, a job that was as inconspicuous as it was decisive so that the next steps could progress smoothly. The big dot marked in red on the calendar is the “Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR)“, the general fuel loading rehearsal. It is, basically, a complete simulation of the launch day. The team positions itself as if it were the real takeoff and executes the filling procedure with the same level of detail: some 2.7 million liters of cryogenic propellantsbetween liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, following the schedule that will be used in the final launch. Of course, the RS-25 engines will not start: the test will stop before that phase. NASA’s Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at Kennedy Space Center, Florida NASA has explained in a recent statement who plans to take this test on Saturday, January 31. He also assures that the preparations are going as expected and that they have even managed to advance some tasks. But here experience weighs: the WDR of Artemis I, initially planned for April 2022ran into difficulties and was not completed successfully until June. That delay ended up directly affecting the launch schedule, and is a reminder that, at this point, every detail counts. Therefore, at this point, the scenario still allows for several twists. If any problems appear during WDR, NASA could choose to postpone it, repeat it, or even organize additional rehearsals. There is also a possibility that, after completing the test, it will decide to move the SLS and Orion back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to perform additional work before returning to the ramp. If the WDR is completed successfully, the next step will be a flight readiness review in early February. At that meeting, the management team will evaluate the availability of all systems involved: flight hardware, ground infrastructure, and launch, flight, and recovery equipment. Only after passing that review will an official date be announced. With all this on the table, the first slot on February 6 (already February 7 on the peninsula due to the time difference) appears as the first real great opportunity. QBut just because it exists doesn’t mean it will be used.. Even with everything aligned, NASA could decide to jump directly into one of the next planned gaps in the schedule. The good news is that once the WDR is run, we will have a much clearer map of what can happen. And there is still the factor that has broken perfect plans the most times: time. In a launch of this type, the weather is not a nuance, it is a filter. The rules … Read more

Four astronauts are going to undertake an unprecedented journey to the Moon. They have no intention of stepping on it

by

After years of delays and rumors, NASA confirmed it finally: Artemis 2 will take off towards the moon imminently: it will be on February 6 when the team of astronauts formed by Christina Koch, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Jeremy Hansen returns to lunar orbit after almost 60 years. More specifically, it was in ’72 with Apollo 17. There is nothing left in the countdown for a 10-day mission full of doubts and some controversy. The previous steps. On January 17, NASA began the deployment of the enormous SLS rocket (Space Launch System) and the Orion capsule from the vehicle assembly building to launch pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center in a 6.4 kilometer journey carried out on a gigantic Crawler-Transporter 2 tractor in enormous logistics. Now that you are on the platform, the next step is the “Wet Dress Rehearsal” (something like the general rehearsal) where the cryogenic propellants are loaded to check that there are no leaks and a complete countdown is executed that stops just before ignition to validate the flight software and the synchronization of the ground systems. If all goes well, the launch window opens on the aforementioned February 6. The crew. POT The mission. Artemis II will not land on the Moon, but will instead perform a lunar flyby with the aim of testing the life support systems and manual maneuvering capabilities of the Orion capsule in the deep space radiation environment. In addition, the spacecraft will use lunar gravity to “propel” its return to Earth without major engine ignitions. The parallels with Apollo 8. Analogies with the veteran ’68 mission are inevitable since Artemis II will not land on the moon, but will instead perform a lunar flyby. On that mission, the astronauts were able to see and photograph the far side of the moon and now, the team will travel beyond its far side. Apollo 8 was launched at a time when the program’s lunar module was not yet ready for manned flight and with Artemis II more of the same. Thus, the first planned lunar flight of Artemis is called Starship HLS (Human Landing System), it is being developed by Space However, given the doubts regarding its development schedule, NASA has a plan B: hire another company. Why don’t you go to step on the moon?. In short, because it is not a lunar module and therefore, because it is not prepared for such a purpose. NASA Deputy Director of Mission Analysis and Evaluations Patty Casas Horn deepen: “Throughout NASA’s history, everything we do carries some risk, so we want to make sure that risk is sensible and only accept as much risk as is necessary, within reason. So we develop a capability, then we test it, then we develop a capability, then we test it. And we’ll land on the Moon, but Artemis II is really focused on the crew.” The program’s debut was Artemis I, which on a 25-day uncrewed mission orbited the moon in 2022. Now we are in the next phase: the first time there will be people aboard the Artemis spacecraft. The crew will transfer to the Orion capsule to move around the moon just before the SLS rocket launches Orion into Earth orbit. Horn explains that in this mission “we will test many new capabilities that we did not have available in Artemis I”, for example the comfort of people or collateral effects such as the humidity they add to the air, their needs for food, bathrooms or water. Wet Dress Rehearsal. POT What makes it unique. The crew intends to travel beyond the far side of the Moon, which could open the doors to a new record for the distance that humanity has traveled from Earth, a title that to this day boasts Apollo 13 with 401,000 kilometers. On the other hand, the SLS is the most powerful rocket in operational configuration, surpassing the mythical rocket in thrust. Saturn V of the 60s. Logically, it will also do so with cutting-edge technology, such as autonomous optical navigation systems or the Orion heat shield, redesigned after data from Artemis I, to protect the crew during re-entry at 40,000 km/h. Furthermore, in this mission NASA has remembered diversity to mark a milestone in the form of a trip beyond low Earth orbit for a woman, a Canadian and an African American because yes, there is life beyond the white American male cishetero In Xataka | It is now possible to book a hotel stay on the Moon for $250,000. Building it is still the complicated part In Xataka | We have been deceived by the distances of the Solar System: the closest neighbor to Neptune is Mercury Cover | POT

It is now possible to book a hotel stay on the Moon for $250,000. Building it is still the complicated part

by

The Moon has returned to the center of the board and, this time, not only as a symbol of the past. The conversation is no longer just about missions and flags, but also what kind of activity could be sustained there if access becomes more frequent. On that horizon a broader idea begins to appear, that of a future lunar economy, with services and infrastructure yet to be invented. And among all these possibilities there is one that is disconcerting from the start: tourism, the promise of changing traditional vacations for a stay away from Earth. Landing the proposal. What has been put on the table is not a ticket or a travel date, but the option of entering into a process to reserve a future place in something that does not yet exist. GRU Space has opened an early access application program to participate in its first lunar missions, a pre-filter that, if passed, allows you to move to the deposit phase and maintain a position in the queue. There are still no assigned rooms or a closed calendar for guests, and the company presents the process as a way to select participants and check their ability to travel, not as a direct purchase of a stay on the Moon. Money rules. Booking is not cheap, nor is it definitive. The first step is a non-refundable $1,000 application fee. If the applicant is selected, GRU Space offers two deposit options, $250,000 or one million dollars, which can be recovered at any time from the first 30 days and which would be applied to the final price if the hotel accepts guests. That price, the company itself warns, has not yet been set and will probably exceed ten million dollars, a useful reminder that here the easy thing is to sign up and the difficult thing is to materialize the trip. A huge ambition with a minimal structure. GRU Space is, for now, a small company with a very big speech. Its founder, Skyler Chanrecently graduated from Berkeley and has explained that for much of 2025 he was practically the only full-time employee, a context that helps understand the early nature of this initiative. The company has secured seed funding, but its current scale does not correspond to that of a consolidated industrial organization. It rather fits a startup trying to turn a long-term vision into an executable plan. The Moon as a destination, not as a simple stop. In GRU Space’s approach there is a recurring idea: space transportation is necessary, but insufficient. The company defends that the bottleneck is in habitability, in having structures where people can stay without continually depending on the ship that took them there. Under this approach, the hotel is not presented only as a tourist whim, but as a use case that would force us to solve problems of daily life outside of Earth. His argument is that such learning, if it comes, would serve as a basis for broader infrastructures. The calendar that the company publishes is carefully staggered and full of conditionals. In 2026, it plans to review applications and profile the first participants, and then, in 2027, assign invitations linked to missions and stays through a selection mechanism and private bidding. The next milestone is in 2029, with the sending of a construction load to the lunar surface as a demonstration of preparation for subsequent phases. In its technical roadmap, the deployment of habitat and systems arrives in 2031 and the “first hotel”, as such, remains for 2032, leaving the tourist premiere for the end of a chain of steps that, on paper, should go well consecutively. From inflatable habitat to lunar construction. The project does not start with a permanent hotel, but with progressive technical demonstrations. GRU Space first proposes validating the deployment of inflatable structures and their behavior on the Moon, a way of testing without carrying the weight of a traditional construction from minute one. If that phase works, the next step would be to manufacture construction materials directly there, using the lunar soil itself as raw material, through geopolymer processes that, at least in their early stages, depend on activators brought from Earth. The idea is to reduce dependence on mass shipments and move towards more solid structures, designed for a more stable occupation. The target audience for GRU Space is not limited to the eccentric traveler with a huge bank account. In his approach, tourism acts as a catalyst for the broader economy, a way of introducing private clients into an environment dominated until now by state programs. The idea is that these first users help pay for infrastructure that can later be used for logistical, scientific or industrial activities. It is a bet to create demand where it does not yet exist, with the risk that the market will not materialize as they hope. The project leaves a clear feeling: the simple part is measuring interest and capturing early commitments, the complex part begins later. Turning an idea into functional infrastructure on the Moon means depending on launchers, technologies still in testing, and impeccable execution for years. In this context, talking about reserves serves to test the market, but it does not clear up the central doubts. The question is no longer whether there are people willing to pay, but whether everything else will arrive on time and as promised. Images | GRU Space In Xataka | We already have an official date for the United States’ return to the Moon: it is imminent and mired in a sea of ​​doubts

The US already knows when it wants to return to the Moon to beat China. The problem is how the ship will return

by

There is already an official date. After years of delays and speculations, NASA has confirmed what was rumored in the halls of Washington: Artemis 2 has the green light for launch on February 6, 2026. And what is its destination? Neither more nor less than the Moon itself. Tuning. With this announcement, NASA is already preparing for the transfer of the gigantic SLS rocket (Space Launch System) to platform 39B this very January 17, starting the final countdown for humans to orbit the Moon again. Something that has not happened since 1972 with Apollo 17. However, this is not a celebration without controversy. The mission, which will take the astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen to a 10-day trip around our satellite, has been brought forward under strong political pressure. And it does so with a worrying technical asterisk: the behavior of the Orion ship’s heat shield. A battle of pressures. On the one hand, Donald Trump has historically shown its impatience with the deadlines that NASA was giving to be able to orbit around the Moon. All this with an eye on China, which threatened to be the ‘first’ and overtake the United States in this fact. What has been the solution? put to Jared Isaacman as NASA Administratora billionaire, private pilot and astronaut (known for his missions in Polaris Dawn and its links with SpaceX) to prioritize speed and calculated risk-taking over the complete risk aversion that “old NASA” had. Because. February 6, 2026 has been set as set in stone for several strategic reasons that outweigh engineering doubts about the heat shield. The first of them It’s the race against Chinasince the Asian country has a very advanced lunar program and aims put taikonauts on the Moon before 2030. If Artemis 2 was delayed to redesign the heat shield (which would have taken years), Artemis 3 would have been gone until 2028-2029 or longer, leaving the door open for China to arrive earlier or very close. But they do not stop here, since for this administration the Moon is a springboard to reach Mars, this mission being a simple way to validate the systems they are using. That is why every delay on the Moon is a delay for the mission to Mars, which promises to be the historical legacy they seek. The Avcoat dilemma. The main point of friction between engineers and the agency’s new management lies at the bottom of the Orion capsule. During the Artemis 1 unmanned mission in 2022the heat shield (made from an ablative material called Avcoat) behaved unexpectedly. And instead of being consumed uniformly, it broke off in pieces, creating craters and cracks due to the gases trapped in the material. during re-entry into the atmosphere. The engineering logic faced with this problem would mark make a new design or material change. But since it is something that would delay everything, NASA has opted for a change in angle during reentry to minimize thermal stress in the most affected areas to maintain the same shield. The doubts. NASA assures that the risk is “acceptable”, but this decision has raised blisters in the aerospace security community. Added to this is that the life support system (ECLSS)provided in part by ESA, has never been fully tested in flight with humans, adding an extra layer of uncertainty to the mission. Charles Camarda, veteran astronaut of the STS-114 mission, the return flight after the Columbia disaster, has been blunt in this regard. In statements, Camarda has compared the current situation with the “dysfunctional culture” that led to the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. But for the NASA administrator, Artemis 2 is a non-negotiable step to ensure American leadership and the future cislunar economy. Operating tension. As if the pressure on Artemis were not enough, NASA also faces a parallel crisis in low orbit. The agency and SpaceX have scheduled January 14 undocking of the Crew-11 mission of the International Space Station (ISS) due to urgent medical evacuation. This is an unprecedented event in the history of the ISS: lowering an astronaut for an unspecified medical problem (although he has been confirmed to be stable). Although Isaacman has assured that this operational incident will not affect the schedule of Artemis 2adds a considerable load of stress to mission control teams in Houston, who must now manage a crisis in real time while preparing for the most important launch of the decade. What can we expect? At the moment, the dates we know are January 17, where the SLS rolls towards its platform, and February 6, when the window for its launch will open. In total, a 10-day flight mission is expected, with a lunar flyby and high-speed return. Specifically, 40,000 km/h. NASA has much more at stake than a mission in February. The validation of its security model is at stake in the new space era, where geopolitical competition and commercial rush collide head-on with the immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics. Images | Pedro Lastra POT In Xataka | We have been deceived by the distances of the Solar System: the closest neighbor to Neptune is Mercury

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.