International crew bound for space station
The capsule, named Endeavour, has previously flown four NASA missions as well as a private mission.
The Crew-11 mission marks the 11th crew rotation mission to the ISS under NASA's Commercial Crew Program, which was created to succeed the Space Shuttle era by partnering with private industry.
As part of their six-month stay, the Crew-11 astronauts will simulate Moon landing scenarios that could be encountered near the lunar South Pole under the United States-led Artemis program.
Using handheld controllers and multiple display screens, they will test how shifts in gravity affect astronauts' ability to pilot spacecraft, including future lunar landers.
Continuously inhabited since 2000, the ISS functions as a vital testbed for research that supports deeper space exploration -- including eventual missions to Mars.
Among Crew-11's more colorful cargo items are Armenian pomegranate seeds, which will be compared to a control batch kept on Earth to study how microgravity influences crop growth.
The ISS is set to be de-commissioned after 2030, with its orbit gradually lowered until it breaks up in the atmosphere over a remote part of the Pacific Ocean called Point Nemo, a spacecraft graveyard.
Dmitry Bakanov, the head of Russia's space agency Roscosmos has been holding talks with NASA's acting administrator Sean Duffy this week about the station's future.
When US-Russia relations nosedived at the start of the Ukraine war, Russia threatened to pull out of ISS cooperation early. But on Thursday, Bakanov confirmed Russia remained committed to de-orbiting in 2030.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
3 hours ago
- LeMonde
Elon Musk, Robert A. Heinlein and the urgent call to colonize space
On April 28, Elon Musk asked his artificial intelligence Grok to define itself. As usual, the Tesla CEO's messaging was cryptic. His posts on X (formerly Twitter), and even the names of his children, often feel like riddles, decipherable only to those in the know. But for newcomers, this moment of self-definition offered a rare clue: The name Grok was an homage to science fiction novelist Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988). Heinlein, along with Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) and Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008), is regarded as one of the "Big Three" of the Golden Age of American science fiction, which spanned from the late 1930s to the 1960s. In his 1961 bestseller Stranger in a Strange Land, a Martian uses the word "grok" to describe his way of understanding Earth. Musk echoed the spirit of the novel in a February 2025 post on X, writing: "The word 'grok' means to fully and profoundly understand something." Heinlein was trained as both an engineer and a military officer. A key figure in hard science fiction – a genre rooted in scientific and technological rigor – he also had a strong interest in psychology. In a 1947 lecture, he regretted that "too many so-called science fiction stories forget about human beings and their problems." Stranger in a Strange Land follows a human born on Mars and raised in Martian culture as he struggles to adapt to life on Earth. Gérard Klein, a leading French science fiction editor, described the novel as a philosophical tale in the tradition of Montesquieu's Lettres persanes (Persian Letters, 1721). Confronted with political intrigue and human greed, the protagonist, Valentine Michael Smith, is baffled by the Earthlings' obsession with power and property.
France 24
6 hours ago
- France 24
Space race: US aims to beat out China and Russia with nuclear reactor on the Moon
US Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy has made installing a nuclear reactor on the Moon a top priority, Politico reported on Tuesday. The former Fox News host issued a directive to NASA staff on Thursday, describing the mission as a "second space race" – one he clearly hopes will end, like the first one in 1969, with the United States ahead of its rivals. Duffy set a firm deadline: 2029. That's when he wants the first nuclear reactor launched to the Moon, according to The New York Times. The goal is to get there before China and Russia, which have announced joint plans to build their own nuclear generator on the Moon in the early 2030s. Last May, Beijing and Moscow signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on building a reactor to be the primary power source for an 'international' lunar base, a facility the two countries are planning together. Washington now fears that if Russia or China arrives first, it could declare a 'keep-out zone', effectively limiting others from setting up operations nearby. The race to build a lunar nuclear reactor is tied to broader ambitions to establish a long-term human presence on the Moon. Washington's Artemis programme and the joint Sino-Russian project both foresee permanent bases, which would require more power than the short Apollo-era missions of the 1970s. "We need a lot of energy for future missions to the Moon," said Simon Middleburgh of the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University in Wales. "To establish permanent Moon bases, we would need to be generating our own water and oxygen." But the question of what kind of energy can be used to meet lunar energy needs is still being debated. "Normally what people might expect is to use solar power," said Ian Whittaker, an astrophysicist at Nottingham Trent University. "But there's a specific challenge on the Moon: the lunar night." That night lasts the equivalent of 14 Earth days, meaning an enormous number of batteries would be required to store enough solar energy to last through it. Such a setup would be costly and extremely difficult to deliver. Nuclear power, by contrast, offers an advantage in energy density. "It's very dense, which means that a reactor the size of a small car could theoretically power a lunar base for around six years without refuelling," Middleburgh said. This has long made nuclear power one of the more practical options. "There was a lot of experimenting during the golden age of space exploration in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, and even back then, nuclear power was already being considered," said Carlo Carrelli, a nuclear energy expert at Italy's national agency for new technologies and sustainable development. "It might sound new to the general public, but it's really not." When it comes to lunar technology, size matters – the smaller, the better. "The typical nuclear installation on Earth is huge, very heavy, and provides so much power," Carrelli said. "You can't deploy something like that on the Moon as you'd need to transport thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete. Plus, it would waste a lot of energy for bases that, at least initially, will be quite small." "For now, research is focused on so-called microreactors that generate kilowatts of power rather than gigawatts, as is the case with Earth-based plants. Such structures can be transported aboard rockets," Whittaker added. NASA has already invested more than $200 million since 2000 into developing such small-scale nuclear systems, though none have yet reached flight-readiness. In 2023, the agency awarded three $5 million contracts to industry partners to study 40-kilowatt reactor concepts, enough to power 30 homes continuously for a decade. No lunar Chernobyl Transporting a scaled-down reactor is not the same as launching a nuclear power plant into orbit, but it is still likely to be an expensive operation. For one, it's unclear how many microreactors will be needed. While a single unit might suffice, backup reactors would be essential in case of failure. Experts told FRANCE 24 said it was impossible to imagine a lunar base without an alternative power source if the lights were to go out. All in all, launching and installing the reactors could cost several billion dollars, factoring in both manufacturing and delivery. But that's not the only challenge. "There will be unique technical problems due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon," Middleburgh said. "On Earth, heat from nuclear fission is partly dissipated thanks to our atmosphere. On the Moon, we'll need alternative cooling systems." There's also the issue of gravity. "Boiling and other heat-transfer processes don't happen the same way in low gravity, which further complicates reactor cooling," Middleburgh explained. As for the possibility of a nuclear explosion in space, a Chernobyl-style disaster on the Moon is highly unlikely and more the stuff of science fiction. Experts downplayed the risk, citing the lack of oxygen as a key factor that reduces the chances of the types of chemical reactions needed for such a catastrophe. Still, many of these logistical challenges remain – even if, as Carrelli pointed out, "the microreactors themselves are relatively easy and quick to build". A lawless new frontier NASA's 2029 goal may thus seem a bit ambitious. "But not entirely unrealistic, although the early 2030s are more likely," Carrelli said. Washington's eagerness to turn the project into a full-fledged "space race" also makes geopolitical sense. "The geopolitical dimension is arguably more important than the technical challenge of building and setting up the reactors," said Whittaker. The first nation to succeed could gain a lasting advantage. "Everyone wants to be first, because there are currently no laws or treaties governing lunar colonisation," said Whittaker. "It's a bit like colonisation used to be: the first to settle could claim ownership." On the Moon, energy may translate into territory. "The idea is to install the reactors first, then argue that the lunar base must be built nearby, thereby staking a claim on the surrounding area," he added. At present, no rules exist to challenge such behaviour. "My hope as a scientist is that we can act very similarly to how we behaved under the International Space Station," Middleburgh said, where collaboration was key. Whether such a spirit of cooperation remains possible, however, is doubtful given the increasingly tense rhetoric between the United States and both China and Russia.
LeMonde
8 hours ago
- LeMonde
Scientists outraged by climate-skeptic report commissioned by Trump administration
The outrage within the American scientific community has not subsided. Since the US Department of Energy (DOE) published a report entitled "A Critical Review of the Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate" on July 29, many researchers have condemned it, denouncing the proliferation of errors, omissions and falsifications strewn throughout the document's 150 pages. The report was commissioned by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former executive in the shale gas industry, in March. It aims to deny or downplay the risks climate change poses to the United States. "Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe," wrote Wright, in the report's introduction. According to information Le Monde was able to acquire, the climate science community is preparing a collective rebuttal of the document, which, in theory, is still currently open for comments. The report was published only hours after Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced his plan to rescind the "Endangerment Finding," which the EPA established in 2009, following a US Supreme Court ruling that ordered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. The Endangerment Finding is a body of scientific facts describing the risks global warming represents for the American population. It forms the legal basis for the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
