It was a remarkable moment of irony. As humanity began its first journey to another world, the newspaper that had once ridiculed one of America’s earliest rocket pioneers was forced to admit that he had been right all along.

The correction came far too late for Goddard, who had died in 1945. Even in 1969 many Americans, except those connected to science and engineering—would not have recognized his name. Much of his work had been conducted quietly and away from public attention, and during his lifetime he remained largely unknown outside technical circles. NASA did honor him by naming its Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland after him in 1959.

One hundred years ago today, on March 16, 1926, that same quiet pioneer conducted an experiment that would ultimately change the course of human history.

A Short Flight That Changed Everything

On a snow-covered cabbage field belonging to his Aunt Effie Ward in Auburn, Massachusetts, Goddard launched the world’s first liquid-fueled rocket. It rose only 41 feet, traveled 184 feet, and remained in flight for just 2.5 seconds. Yet in that brief moment the foundations of modern rocketry were established.

The rocket itself was modest by any measure. Fueled by gasoline and liquid oxygen, it weighed about ten pounds and stood roughly ten feet tall. The engine and nozzle were mounted at the top, with the propellant tanks below. Goddard believed this configuration would provide greater stability, somewhat like balancing a stick on a fingertip.

When the rocket finally lifted from the launch frame, it accelerated quickly before curving into a nearby patch of snow and ice, ending its short but historic flight.

Goddard recorded the event with characteristic understatement in his diary: “Tried rocket at 2.30. It rose 41 feet & went 184 feet, in 2.5 seconds.”

Those few seconds quietly marked the birth of liquid-fueled rocketry. Rockets that followed, from the German V-2 of World War II to the Saturn V that carried Apollo astronauts to the Moon, and today’s Space Launch System that will return astronauts there—rely on principles first demonstrated in that early experiment.

Vision Before the Technology

Goddard’s ideas had been developing for years before that flight. In 1919 he published a Smithsonian paper titled A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. In it he examined the physics of rocket propulsion and calculated how rockets could reach extremely high altitudes. The paper even considered the possibility of sending a rocket to the Moon carrying a flash powder that could be seen through a telescope. The technical work was sound, but the suggestion of a lunar rocket captured the imagination of the press.

On January 13, 1920, The New York Times ran an editorial titled “A Severe Strain on Credulity.” The article mocked Goddard and suggested that he did not understand the basic physics of rocket propulsion. The paper argued that rockets could not operate in the vacuum of space because there would be nothing for them to push against.

The criticism reflected a misunderstanding of Newton’s Third Law. Rockets do not need air to push against. They work by expelling mass in one direction, producing an equal and opposite reaction that propels the vehicle forward. This principle works equally well in a vacuum.

The editorial became one of the most famous scientific misjudgments in journalism. For Goddard, however, the impact was personal. Already a reserved individual, he became even more cautious about publicizing his work. Much of his later research took place quietly, often with limited funding and little public recognition.

A Lifetime of Innovation

Despite these challenges, Goddard continued to pursue the technology he believed would eventually open the door to space.

Over the course of his career he secured 214 patents related to rocket propulsion and guidance systems. Forty-eight were issued during his lifetime, and an additional 131 were granted after his death based on the detailed notes and designs he left behind.

Many of the concepts that define modern rocketry first appeared in Goddard’s work. These included liquid-propellant engines, multi-stage rockets, gyroscopic guidance systems, turbopumps for feeding propellants into combustion chambers, and cooling systems that allow rocket engines to withstand extreme temperatures.

Taken together, these innovations form the engineering foundation of modern launch vehicles.

The Dream Begins in a Cherry Tree

Goddard’s interest in space began long before his Auburn experiments. In October 1899, when he was seventeen years old, he climbed a cherry tree in his yard to prune dead branches. While sitting in the tree he looked across the countryside and imagined building a machine that could travel to Mars.

The moment left such an impression on him that he later referred to October 19 as his personal “Anniversary Day.” From that point forward he dedicated his life to developing the technology that might make such journeys possible. At the time the dream of spaceflight seemed far removed from practical engineering. Yet Goddard believed rockets offered a path forward.

Goddard’s path to rocketry ran through physics and teaching. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1908 and later completed his master’s and doctorate at Clark University in Worcester. After joining Clark’s faculty, he began turning his theoretical work into practical experiments, building and testing rocket components while continuing his research and teaching. It was during these years that the ideas outlined in his 1919 Smithsonian paper began to evolve from calculations into working hardware. While at Clark, Goddard even conducted early rocket experiments on campus, once launching a small powder rocket from the basement of the physics building.

Roswell and the Road to Modern Rockets

In the 1930s Goddard moved his research operations to Roswell, New Mexico, where the open terrain and clear skies allowed him to conduct more ambitious experiments. There he launched a series of increasingly advanced rockets. Some achieved supersonic speeds and demonstrated active guidance systems capable of controlling a rocket’s trajectory during flight.

One of the individuals who recognized the importance of Goddard’s work was Charles Lindbergh. After learning about the rocket experiments, Lindbergh visited Goddard and helped secure financial support from the Guggenheim family. The funding allowed Goddard to expand his research program in New Mexico and continue developing the technologies that would later become standard in rocket engineering. Although much of his work remained little known to the public, it laid important groundwork for later developments in rocketry.

The Path to the Moon

The connection between Goddard’s early experiments and later space achievements is unmistakable. When Apollo 11 astronauts traveled to the Moon in 1969, they were flying atop the Saturn V, a massive liquid-fueled rocket that relied on many of the same principles Goddard had explored decades earlier.

Buzz Aldrin carried a small copy of Goddard’s autobiography to the lunar surface as a tribute to the pioneer whose work had helped make the mission possible. By that point the scale of rocketry had grown dramatically. Goddard’s first rocket weighed about ten pounds. The Saturn V weighed more than six million pounds at liftoff. Yet the underlying physics remained the same. In a very real sense, the Saturn rockets were descendants of that small vehicle launched from the Auburn cabbage field.

A Foundation for the Future

For Goddard, rockets were never the final goal. They were tools that might someday allow humanity to explore beyond Earth. A century after his first liquid-fueled rocket rose briefly into the Massachusetts sky, the trajectory he began continues to shape the future of space exploration. The rockets that launch today are larger and more capable, but they still rely on the principles he demonstrated in 1926.

Today we are entering a new era of exploration. Missions are preparing to return astronauts to the Moon, new spacecraft are being developed to explore our solar system, and commercial companies are expanding access to space in ways that were once unimaginable. These efforts build upon the engineering foundations that Goddard helped establish a century ago.

The centennial of Goddard’s first rocket flight is also being marked in ways that look toward the future. To celebrate the anniversary, the National Space Society helped launch the Goddard 100 Student Contest, inviting students to explore the history and future of rocketry through research, design, and creative projects. The goal is not only to commemorate Goddard’s achievement, but also to encourage the next generation of scientists, engineers, and explorers who will build upon the foundations he established a century ago.

For organizations such as the National Space Society, that future includes the long-term goal of humanity becoming a true spacefaring civilization, expanding human presence throughout the solar system.

Goddard understood how new ideas are often received. He once wrote, “Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace.” A hundred years after that first rocket flight, the vision he pursued so patiently continues to move humanity outward toward the future he imagined.

Over the years, I have been fortunate to meet 174 space explorers. Yes, I actually counted them.

The first astronaut I ever met was Paul J. Weitz. It was 1975, and he came to my high school in Philadelphia, Northeast High School, to visit our student space program, Project SPARC (Space Research Capsule). At the time, Weitz was already a veteran astronaut who had flown on Skylab 2 and would later command STS-6, the first flight of the Space Shuttle Challenger.

Little did I know then that meeting astronauts would become a recurring part of my life. Since that day, I have met astronauts from around the world. Most have been NASA astronauts, but I have also met cosmonauts and astronauts from Italy, France, Brazil, Canada, and Japan. I have met private astronauts who flew aboard Soyuz to the International Space Station, astronauts from Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic, and members of the Inspiration4 crew.

Most remarkable of all, I have met 10 of the 12 astronauts who walked on the Moon. But until recently, there was one kind of space explorer I had never met before: a space armadillo.

Enter Rupert

Meet Rupert the Space Armadillo, the official mascot of the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum (CCSFM).

Rupert’s story began in 2019 when two museum volunteers presented a plush armadillo to museum director Jamie Draper. During lunch that day, Draper and his team began inventing a backstory for the character. Before long, Rupert the Space Armadillo had a personality, a mission, and a place in the museum’s outreach efforts.

According to museum lore, Rupert lives in the underbrush around the museum at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. His ancestors supposedly escaped from a local zoo nearly a hundred years ago and gradually spread across Florida’s Space Coast. Growing up in the shadow of the Cape’s mighty launch complexes, Rupert developed a fascination with rockets at an early age.

Ever since seeing his first launch, Rupert dreamed of going to space. Unlike most childhood dreams, this one actually came true.

Rupert Goes to Space

In August 2025, Rupert achieved something no museum mascot had done before. He flew to space. Rupert was launched to the International Space Station aboard SpaceX Crew-11 on August 2, 2025. That flight made him the first armadillo and the first official space museum mascot to travel into space. His ride came courtesy of astronaut Michael E. Fincke, who carried Rupert along on the mission.

Rupert did not simply show up on launch day. According to his official biography, he spent a year preparing for the flight. His training included completing the USAFA Space AI Challenge, Space Cargo Specialist training, and several other courses that remain classified.

Somewhere along the way he also earned the rank of Lieutenant in the United States Space Force, which may make him the only armadillo with a security clearance.

A Very Gracious Space Explorer

In my experience, astronauts are gracious about sharing stories of their missions—the launch, the view of Earth, and the challenges of spaceflight. Rupert was no different. He seemed perfectly at home greeting students and visitors coming through the museum. Now that he is back on Earth, Rupert has returned to his primary assignment: outreach and education.

You will find him greeting guests, posing for photos, and helping inspire the next generation of explorers who visit the museum. And if even one of those young visitors grows up to fly in space, Rupert will have played a small part in that journey.

Explorer Number 175

After meeting 174 human space explorers, I never expected the next one on my list to be an armadillo.

But space exploration has always had a sense of humor. Mascots have long been part of the culture of human spaceflight. While Rupert was the first museum mascot to fly to space, Astrobeagle Snoopy has made several trips to space, most recently as the zero-gravity indicator for NASA’s Artemis I flight test in November 2022.

Perhaps Snoopy will one day join my list, but for now I am happy to report that space explorer number 175 on my list is Rupert the Space Armadillo. And somehow, it feels perfectly appropriate that a creature who grew up watching rockets from the underbrush of Cape Canaveral would eventually get his own trip to space.

On the Space Coast, even the wildlife grows up dreaming of space.

More information about Rupert and the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum 

Rollout Set for March 19

Today I was in the press room at the Kennedy Space Center for NASA’s briefing following completion of the Artemis II Flight Readiness Review (FRR). The review represents one of the final major milestones before launch, bringing together engineering teams, mission managers, and flight operations leaders to determine whether the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and supporting ground systems are ready for flight.

The briefing featured (left to right in photo above) Lori Glaze, Acting Associate Administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate; John Honeycutt, Chair of the Artemis II Mission Management Team; Shawn Quinn, Manager of the Exploration Ground Systems Program; and Norm Knight, Director of NASA’s Flight Operations Directorate. (Photo by Burt Dicht.)

The key announcement from the briefing was that rollout of the Artemis II vehicle is scheduled for March 19, with the first launch opportunity targeted for April 1 at 6:24 p.m. Eastern.

NASA officials also noted that April 2 is another available launch opportunity, with additional possible launch dates including April 3 through April 6 and April 30, depending on trajectory requirements and mission constraints.

A Thorough Flight Readiness Review

Glaze described the FRR as an extensive evaluation of every aspect of mission preparedness. The discussions focused heavily on the mission’s overall risk posture and the efforts undertaken to mitigate potential risks.

According to Glaze, the discussions were complete and intense, with open and honest feedback from the teams responsible for the mission. The Artemis II astronauts also participated in the review virtually. At the conclusion of the process, each team was formally polled for readiness.

All reported “go” for flight.

Glaze emphasized, however, that the work continues. Thousands of people across NASA and its industry partners remain engaged in preparing the rocket, spacecraft, and ground infrastructure for launch.

When asked about possible launch dates in May, she acknowledged that additional windows exist later in the calendar but stressed that the team’s focus right now is on the April opportunities.

Resolving the Helium Flow Issue

A major topic during the briefing was the helium flow issue that prompted NASA to roll the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) earlier in the campaign. Shawn Quinn explained that the problem originated in a Quick Disconnect (QD) connection between the upper stage and the ground umbilical system.

Engineers removed the QD assembly and constructed a test configuration to simulate the connection. Through extensive testing, they determined that a seal could become dislodged under high pressure and block the helium flow.

To resolve the issue, the problematic seal was removed, and engineers redesigned another seal in the system to take over the required function. After numerous tests, the configuration was flight certified and reinstalled in the Artemis II upper stage.

While the vehicle was inside the VAB, teams also took the opportunity to complete additional work, including replacing the flight termination system batteries, charging them, and conducting further testing of the system.

Preparing for Launch Day

NASA teams also continued refining launch operations.

Quinn noted that the Crew Closeout Team, responsible for assisting astronauts as they board Orion on launch day, recently completed a full two-hour and forty-minute rehearsal and is ready for flight day operations.

Norm Knight provided an update on the readiness of the astronauts and the flight operations team.

“The astronauts are 100 percent ready,” Knight said, noting that they have full confidence in the rocket, spacecraft, and the integrated operations team supporting the mission.

The Flight Operations Directorate has completed more than 130 mission simulations, rehearsing both nominal operations and contingency scenarios.

Knight also noted that while NASA now has more than 25 years of human spaceflight experience in low Earth orbit with the ISS, missions to the Moon represent a very different operational challenge. Low Earth orbit operations, he said, do not fully prepare you for going to the Moon. That reality is why the Artemis II team has spent years preparing for this mission through simulations, testing, and careful review.

A Measured Confidence

John Honeycutt reflected on the philosophy guiding the review process, referencing what he called the danger of a “failure of imagination.” The mission team has worked to carefully examine potential risks and ensure they are mitigated wherever possible.

Despite the positive outcome of the Flight Readiness Review, Honeycutt emphasized that the team remains focused and cautious.

“A clean FRR is not the time to celebrate,” he said. “That will be when the astronauts are home safely.”

Key Milestones Ahead

If the schedule holds, several milestones will occur in the coming weeks:

• March 18 (L-14): Astronaut quarantine begins
• March 19 (L-13): Rollout to Launch Complex 39B
• March 27 (L-5): Crew arrival at Kennedy Space Center
• April 1: First launch opportunity – 6:24 p.m. ET

NASA officials also confirmed that no additional wet dress rehearsal is planned before launch.

With the Flight Readiness Review complete and hardware work progressing, Artemis II now enters the final phase of preparations for humanity’s first crewed mission beyond low Earth orbit in more than half a century.

From what we heard in yesterday’s briefing, the mission is in excellent shape and moving steadily toward launch.

A slate of NASA astronauts and leaders will be appearing at the National Space Society’s 44th International Space Development Conference® (ISDC®), to be held in the Washington, D.C. metro area of McLean, Virginia on June 4-7, 2026. All are welcome to attend.

Three of the featured speakers (illustrated above) are:

Michael López-Alegria is a former NASA astronaut and currently the chief astronaut at Axiom Space. López-Alegria started his career as a naval aviator and test pilot, then as a NASA astronaut flew three space shuttle missions and was the commander of Expedition 14 to the International Space Station. He holds a record for the number of EVAs—10 of them—performed by an American. He also commanded the first all-commercial astronaut mission to the ISS with Axiom Space. He also holds the record for second-longest American residence at the station. López-Alegria is a highly sought speaker internationally.

Dr. Lindy Elkins-Tanton is an American planetary scientist and professor and the Principal Investigator on NASA’s Psyche mission to asteroid 16 Psyche. She is also the vice president of Arizona State University’s Interplanetary Initiative and is the co-founder of Beagle Learning, measuring collaborative problem-solving and critical thinking. She has been a professor at MIT, a lecturer at Mount St. Mary’s college, and a researcher at Brown University and is currently the director of Arizona State University’s School of Earth and Space Science. Elkins-Tanton speaks widely and is active in STEM presentations, sharing her journey to scientific leadership, having been one of few woman in history to compete for and win a NASA deep-space mission.

Jeffrey Manber holds a special place in commercial space development. He started as a space journalist, writing for outlets such as The New York Times and Town & Country. He was then tapped by the Reagan administration to form the Office of Space Commerce under the U.S. Department of Commerce. This led to involvement with the Soviet Union, working to commercialize parts of their space program. Manber worked on the first commercial contract between a U.S. pharmaceutical company and Russia’s Mir space station and his work as the managing director of MirCorp assisted American companies to fly cargo on the Soyuz spacecraft. His efforts also paved the way for space shuttle missions to the Russian station. He formed NanoRacks in 2009, the first company to standardize payload integration to the ISS, and developed the Bishop Airlock that was deployed on the ISS. Since NanoRacks was acquired by Voyager Space Technologies in 2021, Manber has served in a number of executive positions for that company.

Also appearing at this year’s conference are Aarti Holla-Maini, Director, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs; NASA astronauts Susan Kilrain, Hoot Gibson, and Dr. Steven Hawley; renowned science fiction author David Brin, and president of national security for Blue Origin Tory Bruno, among many others.

The full schedule of speakers is available on the ISDC website.

“We’re thrilled to host these leaders at the ISDC,” said Isaac Arthur, NSS President. “From a record-setting astronaut, to the leader of one of the most daring deep space missions to date, to a pioneer in the private space sector, their experiences and insights will be an inspiration for us all!”

The ISDC is the oldest and largest citizen’s space conference in the world, and anyone is invited to attend. Special discounts are available for seniors, students, and National Space Society members. For more information, see the conference website at isdc.nss.org.

The Delphi method of predicting the future requires recruiting a group of real experts, asking them a specific question, then averaging their answers. The result is often surprisingly close to the truth. This method has been used to find sunken submarines, among other things. In Reality Check the authors apply this approach to over 50 questions about the future, and present the dates suggested by each expert, the average date predicted, and some explanatory text.

The result is one of the better futurist books I have read, especially in terms of making reasonably accurate specific predictions. It is well worth your time to read, even in 2026. However, I thought it would be fun to take a deeper look at the four space related predictions. It is a bit surprising that there are only four space related predictions, but to a large degree I attribute this to the datacom/telecom bias of WIRED magazine.

One of the predictions, “Contact with Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” claimed to occur in 2025 (last year) is a bit bogus. Two of the four experts said it was unlikely, and other two picked 2025 and 2026, but as the text says, it “… is nearly impossible to predict.” This should have been listed at the end of the book with the other “unlikely” events or not included at all since it is basically a dart throw.

This leaves three space related predictions. The first, an “Operational Space Station,” was predicted for 2004. Surprisingly, this turned out to be overly conservative, as the ISS become operational November 2, 2000, with the arrival of the first long-duration crew and has been crewed continuously ever since.

The second, “Humans on Mars,” was predicted for 2020, with the most distant predication 2030. These dates, like pretty much all previous dates for humans on Mars, now seem far too optimistic. We may – just barely – make it back to the Moon by 2030. Why might these dates be so far off? Part of the reason surely lies in that fact that traveling to Mars is vastly harder than a journey to the Moon, but more significantly, humans probably won’t embark to Mars until either (1) cislunar space has been significantly developed, (2) some major political force decides it is time to go to Mars, or (3) Mars holds the attention of a billionaire long enough for the trip to happen.

Perhaps the most interesting is the third space prediction, “Orbiting Solar Power Plant.” This receives a rating of “Unlikely” with only one expert predicting 2030. In this case, the Delphi method crashes. The text mentions that most experts believe that a cost of $100,000 to put a kilogram into orbit will forever make SSP impossible. The actual 2026 cost to put a kilogram into LEO is about $3,250 using a “full” Falcon 9. This is less than 4% of the 1996 number and is currently expected to drop another 90% over the next ten years as new fully reusable launch vehicles now in test become operational. The experts also seemed to believe that only one SPS would beam power to one rectenna, creating a “single point of failure.” This reasoning in retrospect lacks foundation, as no one has ever proposed building only a single giant SPS.

With a significant number of Space Solar Power (SSP) startups raising money in 2026, it seems possible that something will be in orbit in 2030, although most current serious plans involve a non-classical SPS. Perhaps of greater interest, we are in the grip of a craze to build large numbers of data centers in space, and such a device is just a solar power satellite attached to a big computer that beams results rather than power to the ground. If successful, such space systems promise to reduce the need for power on the Earth and represent the first step toward moving the industries of the Earth off planet.

So – four predictions: one too dubious to even include, one conservative, one optimistic, and one misinformed and on a path to being wrong. Not the best showing for the Delphi method, but the track record of the book is much better for non-space related predictions. Reality Check is well worth your time to read, even a generation after it was written.

© 2026 Dale Skran

NSS index of over 500 book reviews

Japan has one of the world’s largest space programs. While the nation has not yet launched humans into space, it belongs to the top six, along with the US, Russia, China, ESA, and India. It has also had more of its citizens travel in space than any other nation besides the three actually launching crewed missions: the US, USSR/Russia, and China.

Despite this, Japan’s space program is largely unknown to outsiders. This is partly due to language barriers. It also is due to Japan emphasizing unmanned space activities until the 1990s. Their accomplishments have not garnered as much attention as a result. Finally, the 1990s were a decade of failure for Japan’s space agencies, when the only news they seemed to produce was bad news. Japan did not discourage coverage so much as be grateful to be overlooked.

This book, one of the few English-language accounts of the Japanese space program, rectifies that omission. It follows Japanese rocketry developments from the 1920s to 2003, when several existing Japanese space agencies were merged to form JAXA, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency.

Divided into three parts (1920-1960, 1960-1980, and 1980-2003), the book examines the development of Japanese space exploration. The first part, “Child of War,” examines Imperial Japan’s use of rocketry before and during World War II and looks at the rebirth of Japanese rocketry in the 1950s. The second part, “The Institutionalization of Japanese Space Research,” follows the growth of Japan’s different space agencies. The third part, “The Challenges of Advanced Spacefaring,” traces Japanese space exploration to an apogee in the late 1980s, to be followed by a decade of failure in the 1990s.

“Child of War” spends two chapters exploring early Japanese rocketry. It shows the role rocketry played in Imperial Japan, psychologically and practically. Rockets were a way to demonstrate Japanese cultural superiority, a reach for the stars. It also played an important role during World War II, with the development of the manned Ohka rocket, one of the most advanced weapons of that war. But associations with Japanese militarism led to a complete ban on aeronautics and astronautics postwar. Even once the ban was lifted, Japanese scientists had to “demilitarize” space before the Japanese public accepted rocketry.

Part II explores Japan’s first excursions into space. It shows how Japan developed a decentralized space exploration approach, with competing agencies. Among them were the Space Activities Commission, National Aerospace Laboratory, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, and National Space Development Agency of Japan. It illustrates how, unlike the US and USSR, Japan viewed space as a potential profit center, embracing the commercialization of space. It also shows conflicting attitudes towards space development by the Japanese public. While many embraced space, others objected. Some due to cost or opposition to industrialization. Others (most notably fishermen) because launches impacted their commercial activities.

Part III shows the growth of the Japanese space program. Its first chapter explores internal debate within Japan about the directions its space program should take. The next explores Japanese ambitions in space and how they led to difficulties with the US, which provided much of Japan’s leading-edge space technology and wished to discourage international commercial competition. It closes with a chapter on the disastrous 1990s, when nothing seemed to go right, and Japan’s space efforts seemed beset by one disaster after another.

The book is full of ironies. Japan was fully invested in peaceful uses of space when it restarted its space program in 1957.  It wanted to avoid even the appearance of space militarization, understandable given the role rocketry played in the Imperial Military in the 1930s and 1940s. But Wijeyeratne shows how this led to odd results.

Associating liquid-fueled rockets with military use, Japan avoided indigenous development of liquid-fueled rockets in the 1960s, concentrating on solid-fuel boosters. Yet while the initial generation of war missiles, from the German V-2 through the Soviet Semyorka and the US Atlas and Titan, were liquid fueled, by the late 1950s most new war missiles being developed, including IRBMs and ICBMs, were solid rockets.

While a few Soviet military missiles used liquid propellants, by the end of the 1960s, the primary use of liquid-fueled rockets was putting satellites into space, not warheads on targets. That was almost exclusively the purview of solid propellant rockets, for both tactical and strategic purposes. Many of the liquid-fueled ICBMs and IRBMs were repurposed for non-military use as space boosters.

Japan, barred by domestic law from using its solid propellant technology for military uses, found itself behind the rest of the world in liquid-fueled technology by the end of the 1960s. To catch up, it licensed US liquid-rocket technology (initially the Delta) for domestic use. But licensing agreements forbade use of these rockets in the booming international market. It proved crippling to Japanese ambitions to create a profitable space program. Development of their first domestically developed medium-lift vehicle, the H-1, started late, in 1986. Development issues, largely due to an immature turbopump, delayed its deployment until it became uneconomical.

Similarly, because the Shuttle had military applications, Japan remained aloof from participation in the Space Shuttle program. Space agencies that did participate, including Canada and ESA, benefited, moving ahead of Japan. Instead, the Japanese flew as passengers and little else. While Japan became an ISS partner (building the Kibo module), it squandered much of the lead in space it developed in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The Islands and the Stars is a fascinating look at Japan and space. Anyone interested in space history or wishing to learn about Japan’s aspirations and achievements should wish to read it.

© 2026 Mark Lardas

NSS index of over 500 book reviews

On February 24–25, 2026, the Beyond Earth Institute hosted the Beyond Earth Symposium at the Washington College of Law at American University, Washington. Regarded as one of the leading policy forums focused on human expansion into the solar system, this year’s theme — From Space Habitat to Space Town: Creating a Clear Pathway — reflects a shift in mindset. The Master of Ceremony was Steve Wolfe (an NSS member), and NSS had a solid turnout at the event. Participants included Sean Graham, Greg Autry, Macey Schiff, Martine Rothblatt, Gabriel Rothblatt, and Jennifer Rothblatt, to name a few.

Beyond the Flags-and-Footprints Moment

In the keynote session, Bhavya Lal, a former Associate Administrator for Technology, Policy and Strategy for NASA, reframed the meaning of a lunar landing.

“What does it mean to land on the Moon?” she asked. “You don’t look at the first footprints—you look at what happened next.”

Her argument was clear: history does not remember who arrived first as much as it remembers who built enduring systems. The Apollo program delivered an extraordinary geopolitical moment, but it did not establish sustained infrastructure.

The lesson for today is profound. If the United States approaches the Moon as a race — particularly in the face of rising ambitions from China — it risks repeating the pattern of symbolic victory without structural permanence.

A “race” produces moments. Settlement requires systems.

Lal emphasized that the more consequential question is not who lands first, but who brings the infrastructure — power systems, logistics chains, governance models, and commercial frameworks capable of supporting continuity. That infrastructure will determine who shapes the norms, economy, and long-term trajectory of lunar development.

Race vs. Architecture

The panel discussion surfaced a productive tension. Some argued that race framing focuses national will and accelerates decision-making. Others warned that race logic can distort priorities, prioritizing speed over sustainability. Legacy contracting structures and bureaucratic inertia, several speakers noted, have historically slowed innovation.

This raises a central policy challenge:

What is the right infrastructure model?

Will a thriving lunar economy be truly commercial — driven by private capital, risk-taking, and market forces? Or is it an evolved form of government contracting, where commercial actors remain heavily dependent on public funding and policy guarantees?

This distinction matters. If the goal is permanent habitation, then governance structures, property norms, supply chains, and capital flows must mature beyond demonstration projects. A sustainable lunar presence requires predictable regulatory frameworks and investment confidence measured in decades, not fiscal years.

The LEO Economy as a Test Case

These same questions surfaced in the panel on ensuring a thriving low-Earth orbit economy, moderated by Tejpaul Bhatia, CEO of Axiom Space. As the International Space Station approaches retirement, NASA’s transition strategy places increasing responsibility on private stations and commercial research platforms. But uncertainty remains.

Panelists including representatives from VAST, Max Space, and Rhodium Scientific discussed the lingering ambiguities around demand, financing, and regulatory clarity. Without clearer long-term signals, capital formation becomes cautious, and caution can stall momentum.

The LEO transition is effectively a proving ground. If policymakers cannot establish a stable economic framework in near-Earth orbit, extending that model to the Moon becomes significantly harder.

Leadership Beyond NASA

Throughout the symposium, former senior officials and industry leaders, including voices from NASA, SpaceNews, the University of Central Florida, and the American Foreign Policy Council, reinforced a recurring theme: leadership in space will be determined by institutional adaptability and the right infrastructure.

2025 was a very productive year for the Chinese space program. In late May, the China National Space Agency (CNSA) launched Tianwen-2 to collect samples from the near-Earth asteroid 469219 Kamoʻoalewa (which in 2035 will rendezvous with the main belt comet 311P/PANSTARRS). In late June, the Shijian-21 and Shijian-25 spacecraft docked in geostationary (GEO) orbit and conducted a landmark servicing and refueling mission. During August, engineers subjected Lanyue, China’s new crewed lunar lander, to simulated take-off and landing tests. In November, the Tiangong space station hosted the first BBQ in space. Using a specially designed microgravity oven, taikonauts cooked New Orleans-style chicken wings and black pepper steak. Additionally, several new Chinese launch vehicles, such as the Long March 8A, Long March 12A, and Zhuque-3, debuted in 2025.

These impressive space achievements by the PRC (People’s Republic of China) are part of a larger plan to dominate the cosmos. By the mid-21st century, China aspires to create an economic zone between the Earth and the Moon worth $10 trillion annually. What should the United States do? In 2023, Garretson and Harrison wrote an excellent book titled The Next Space Race: A Blueprint for American Primacy on how the USA should anticipate future PRC actions in space. With Space Shock, the authors explore how America should respond to various Chinese space accomplishments.

Garretson and Harrison’s new book is based on three simulated National Space Council (NSpC) workshops held between February and April 2024. Many influential space leaders, including some from the National Space Society, attended each workshop. Participants were assigned a role in the NSpC exercises: Vice President, NASA administrator, Secretary of State, White House Press Secretary, etc. In all three workshops, players were given an hour to respond to six different scenarios involving Chinese activities in space. Each scenario is presented in a near-future news article from a fictitious publication called The Daily Astronomer. Many readers will likely play along and formulate a course of action for the NSpC.

The bulk of Space Shock details the results of all eighteen simulated exercises. While Garretson and Harrison’s findings and recommendations from the three NSpC games won’t be revealed here, their analysis of current U.S. space policy is quite eye-opening. Early in the book, it’s stated that “the stakes in this 21st-century space race are arguably higher than they were during the Cold War, because space activities today are tied to our economic vitality, national security, and control of critical infrastructure and resources.”

Some scenarios assigned to the mock NSpC involve commercial spaceflight disasters. How to handle fatalities in space? This question isn’t pleasant to think about, but it will likely happen one day. Currently, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) faces limits on regulating commercial human spaceflights. Overregulation, many experts believe, will harm the development of the young commercial spaceflight industry. This FAA learning period began in 2004, and at the time of this writing, it expires on January 1, 2028. Some in the space business believe this date should be extended even further. The NSpC players debated how to regulate commercial spaceflight accidents.

Additionally, what happens if space tourists become stranded? Who will rescue them? Late in the book, Garretson and Harrison recommend that the United States “establish an Emergency Space Rescue Protocol with a modest but functional rescue capability based on modified Dragon or Starliner vehicles.” This is an ironic suggestion considering Starliner’s flawed maiden crewed mission; the spacecraft still needs to prove itself. Furthermore, the book mistakenly states that “SpaceX hopes to fly eight crew around the Moon.” This is a reference to dearMoon, a proposed lunar tourism flight that was canceled back in June 2024.

The NSpC players also addressed emerging space technologies. What if China constructed 3D-printed structures on the Moon using lunar regolith? The ability to manufacture igloo-like habitats on the Moon would make the Artemis Base Camp look underwhelming. What about China’s ambitions with space-based solar power (SBSP)? One NSpC exercise involved the PRC orbiting a 500 kW (kilowatt) solar power station. To put that in perspective, the book states that the International Space Station (ISS) has 100 kW; pages later, this figure suddenly changes to 120 kW. Also, China wants to deploy a 1-megawatt (MW) solar power station in geostationary (GEO) orbit. This colossal structure will be one kilometer wide.

What if China harnessed nuclear power in space? NASA is already thinking about this scenario. Last year, then-acting NASA administrator Duffy called for a 100 kW nuclear reactor on the Moon. Furthermore, current NASA boss Jared Isaacman championed nuclear propulsion in Project Athena. Mr. Isaacman notes in his proposal that China and Russia are already working on space nuclear systems. Interestingly, one scenario not explored in Space Shock is artificial intelligence. Both China and the U.S. are racing to develop solar-powered AI data centers in space. Last May, the Chinese launched the first batch of AI satellites in their Three-Body Computing Constellation. The final constellation will consist of 2,800 satellites. While the mock NSpC players didn’t discuss Chinese AI data centers in orbit, all illustrations in Space Shock are AI-generated. Some readers will likely not like this decision. Human space artists are (so far) much better.

Arguably, the most intriguing NSpC scenarios involve China beating the U.S. back to the Moon. Beijing wants to land taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030. A Chinese lunar mission will consist of the Mengzhou crew capsule and the Lanyue lunar lander. Each spacecraft will launch on separate Long March 10 boosters; afterward, both vehicles will rendezvous and dock in lunar orbit. Two taikonauts will take Lanyue down to the Moon’s surface.

The reaction of many Americans to China’s lunar ambitions can be summarized as, “So what? There is no race. We already did this decades ago.” For others, there are concerns that Beijing will get to the Moon first and claim it as Chinese territory. The PRC will then have control over valuable lunar resources, such as helium-3 and lunar water ice. In the NSpC simulations, some players correctly pointed out that any potential Chinese lunar land grabs would violate the Outer Space Treaty. However, it was also noted that “the legal challenges surrounding lunar territorial disputes remain complex and largely untested.”

Blue Origin and SpaceX have recently prioritized human lunar missions. Blue Origin recently announced it was pausing New Shepard tourism flights for at least two years; the company will focus more on their Blue Moon lunar lander. For SpaceX, the company has surprisingly shifted its attention from Martian to lunar cities. Each Starship HLS will require multiple fuel tanker missions before landing on the Moon. While Starship HLS boasts an impressive payload advantage over Lanyue, the untested orbital refueling requirement still needs to be proven.

Some U.S. space officials are very worried that China will beat NASA back to the Moon. Notably, NASA announced plans to return to the Moon back in January 2004; only three months prior, China launched their very first human spaceflight mission. Now, after twenty-two years, there are growing doubts America will make it to the Moon before China. What is going on? In any case, anyone that cares about American leadership in space should read this book.

© 2026 Casey Suire

NSS index of over 500 book reviews

What began as a technical update on Artemis II quickly evolved into something much larger at today’s press conference at Kennedy Space Center (photo above by Burt Dicht).

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman opened the briefing not with details about last week’s helium flow issue, but with a candid assessment of the Artemis program itself and a vision for reshaping its path forward.

The press conference, which also included Associate Administrator Amit Kshatriya and Lori Glaze, Acting Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, was originally expected to address the rollback of Artemis II to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). Instead, it became a broader discussion about mission cadence, workforce readiness, and the long-term sustainability of NASA’s return-to-the-Moon architecture.

Isaacman pointed to recurring technical challenges across Artemis missions, noting that Artemis I experienced hydrogen leaks and helium system issues, and Artemis II has encountered similar hydrogen leaks and helium flow concerns following its recent wet dress rehearsal.

He attributed part of the challenge to launch cadence.

When missions fly only once every three years, critical operational skills can erode. He described these essential launch and processing capabilities as a form of “muscle memory,” emphasizing that maintaining core competencies requires a steady operational rhythm.

A multi-year cadence, he said, is not a sustainable pathway to returning humans to the Moon.

Isaacman also emphasized that sustaining a lunar exploration program requires not only hardware and launch cadence, but the preservation of institutional knowledge. He indicated that part of the effort will include expanding NASA’s civil servant workforce to ensure the agency retains the instructional depth and technical continuity needed to support a sustained return to the Moon.

Rethinking the Mission Sequence

Isaacman drew a historical analogy, suggesting that the current Artemis sequence resembles attempting to leap from a lunar flyby directly to a landing mission.

He compared this to skipping from Apollo 8 straight to Apollo 11.

Under the revised approach:

• Artemis II remains the crewed lunar flyby mission.
• Artemis III would shift to an Earth-orbit mission targeted for 2027, which would rendezvous with one or both Human Landing System vehicles, as well as test spacesuits and lunar surface systems.
• Artemis IV, targeted for 2028, would continue system buildup and attempt the first lunar landing under the revised architecture.
• Artemis V, a possible mission targeted for late 2028.

The objective is to reduce launch intervals from more than three years to roughly ten months, with a long-term goal of achieving even shorter spacing between missions. A faster cadence would strengthen workforce proficiency, operational efficiency, and mission reliability.

Isaacman also emphasized the importance of standardizing SLS configurations. Treating each rocket as a unique engineering exercise, he suggested, is not sustainable for a program intended to support regular deep-space operations.

He indicated that NASA’s industry partners support accelerating the program and that discussions with congressional leadership have been encouraging.

It was also announced that NASA was abandoning plans to upgrade the SLS after Artemis 3.

Artemis II Rollback: Access and Assurance

While the strategic discussion dominated the briefing, Artemis II operations remain the immediate focus.

Glaze confirmed that the rocket was rolled back to the VAB after data revealed a helium flow problem in the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), the SLS upper stage.

During last week’s wet dress rehearsal, teams successfully fueled the vehicle, practiced Orion closeout procedures, and conducted terminal countdown operations to approximately T-29 seconds. However, post-test data indicated a helium system issue that required further inspection.

Unlike the core stage, the upper stage cannot be fully accessed at the launch pad. The VAB provides the platforms and access necessary to diagnose and resolve the problem.

Engineers will inspect and repair the helium system and verify performance before returning the vehicle to the pad.

While Artemis II is in the VAB, teams will also replace the Flight Termination System batteries, which must remain fully charged. Lori Glaze also noted that technicians will replace the seal for the liquid oxygen (LOX) interface as part of preventative maintenance. Both seals in the liquid hydrogen quick-disconnect interfaces were replaced between the first and second wet dress rehearsals, contributing to improved performance during the wet dress rehearsal (WDR-2). Teams will also provide additional training opportunities for the capsule closeout team to further refine launch-day procedures.

NASA estimates approximately two weeks of work before the vehicle returns to the pad, followed by about two additional weeks of launch preparations. Current planning points toward a launch no earlier than early April.

Wet Dress Rehearsal Demonstrated Progress

The rollback follows what NASA described as a successful wet dress rehearsal. During the test, SLS was loaded with more than 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, and the launch team executed countdown operations after resolving issues identified in the first rehearsal.

Technicians replaced hydrogen quick-disconnect seals, installed a new hydrogen filter, and refined fueling procedures. During the second rehearsal, hydrogen concentrations remained within safety limits, and terminal countdown demonstrations confirmed readiness of launch systems and procedures.

Three Artemis II crew members observed the rehearsal from the firing room, underscoring the mission’s transition from preparation to reality.

Cadence, Engagement, and the Public

During the question-and-answer session, I asked Administrator Isaacman whether a more frequent launch cadence could also strengthen public engagement, noting that multi-year gaps between missions can allow public attention to drift. He agreed, observing that once Artemis II flies it will capture significant public interest, and a steadier tempo of missions will help sustain enthusiasm and engagement with the nation’s human spaceflight efforts.

Today’s briefing made clear that Artemis II is not only a mission preparing for launch, but part of a broader evolution in how NASA intends to sustain human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

The immediate task is to resolve the helium flow issue and prepare Artemis II for flight. Beyond that, NASA appears poised to shift toward a cadence-driven, sustainability-focused exploration strategy.

If implemented as described, the changes outlined today could shape the tempo and architecture of human spaceflight for the next decade.

For now, Artemis II continues its deliberate march toward launch — one careful, methodical step at a time.

As someone who grew up enthralled by the exploits of NASA astronauts, the Soviet space program always held a special allure. While NASA went out of its way to provide copious information to the media and the press (as well as any youngster who wrote to them and asked for educational materials), the Soviet space program was shrouded in mystery. Little data was forthcoming (and what was revealed to the public was often viewed with skepticism), and there were very few books available to those who wanted to do a deep dive on space-related happenings on the other side of the iron curtain. Even now, over three decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, only a small number of high-quality books on the Soviet space program are available in the West.

Enter into this fray, Beyond Earth, The Soviet Drive into Space: Decoding Their Satellite and Launch Efforts, 1957-1975: A Very Personal View by Saunders B. Kramer. Kramer, who passed away in 2005, was an engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and held a patent for an early space station design. The book is, essentially, Kramer’s diary and journal of Soviet space activity from the program’s inception until 1975.

Details of every Soviet launch, manned and unmanned, from this period are covered in significant detail. The information about launches is interspersed with details of his day-to-day life, interpersonal meetings, thoughts, ruminations, and conversations between Kramer and other people working in the aerospace community (both in the USA and the USSR), as well as observations, guesses, extrapolations, and interpretations of available information.

As the book essentially ends in the mid-1970s, there is no coverage of the later Salyut space stations, Mir, or the International Space Station (ISS). The Soviet Space Shuttle program is only touched on in the briefest of terms as it had not come to fruition during the period the book covers. Some of the information in the book has never been seen before and is very interesting, while other topics contain incomplete, or what would now be recognized as incorrect, information in light of what has been revealed in other books that have documented the Soviet space program after more information has become available.

Kramer was a dedicated chronicler of Soviet space efforts, and the amount of detailed information in the book is impressive to behold. Information about orbital inclinations, apogee and perigee, payload weights, and other details are produced for most flights, to the point that it can be overwhelming at times. Sometimes so many details are presented for the unmanned flights that the reader is left wondering what to do with, say, the 65-degree orbital inclination angle of the Kosmos 47 mission from 1964.

The fact that the book is both a chronicle of space missions and the author’s personal diary makes it lack a consistent tone. The reader bounces back and forth between dinner engagements with friends, the occasional self-promotion, asides on mathematics with equations covering a few pages at a time, and his opinions on different orbital trajectories so quickly that at times one can lose track of what type of book you are actually reading.

The book shines when discussing the Venera missions to Venus and the Lunokhod landers and rovers that the Soviets sent to the Moon. Discussion of the early Salyut space stations and the missions to them is also well done. The coverage of maneuverable satellites and anti-satellite weapons was also very interesting to read.

Overall, this is a dense book for a very niche audience – serious adult readers interested in the early Soviet space program, especially those who are interested in unmanned missions and hunger for a lot of technical details. As the period the book covers ended literally 50 years ago, there is likely little of interest here for younger readers or those who want a broad overview of Soviet and later Russian space missions.

© 2026 Douglas G. Adler

NSS index of over 500 book reviews