Now for the first time, a robotic spacecraft is being readied to rescue a NASA satellite.

NASA’s Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory is a gamma ray telescope that was built to detect gamma ray bursts from galactic objects. It was originally placed in an orbit 600 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Recently the Sun’s increased activity has heated up the upper atmosphere, causing it to expand, which in turn causes satellites to lose altitude more quickly. Right now, Swift has an altitude of only 395 km, and without assistance would almost certainly reenter by the end of this year.

Recognizing this, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate awarded a $30 million contract to Katalyst Space Technologies to attempt a world-first rescue mission. Katalyst’s rescue vehicle, known as LINK, is being equipped with three robotic arms which will allow it to dock with Swift. Then LINK will use its own propulsion system to raise Swift’s orbit back to 600 km altitude. You can read more about the mission at https://www.katalystspace.com/post/nasa-telescope-is-about-to-fall-out-of-the-sky

The challenge is huge. The contract award was made in September 2025, and the mission must launch by June 2026 in order to have maximum chance of success. All the design work, assembly, testing, and preparations for launch must occur in that very compressed 10-month period.

This mission represents another “first” for space robotics. To my knowledge, it is the first time that a robotic servicing vehicle has been funded by a customer for a unique, one-off mission. This signals that the field has grown from concepts and demonstration missions to being an important part of space operations and capabilities.

During four years as a Program Manager at DARPA, 2014-2018, I led a program called Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS). We built a complex robotic module that was to become the payload for a satellite that would go to GEO and perform robotic tasks there. Integration of this incredibly complex payload was conducted at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. Northrop Grumman eventually became DARPA’s commercial partner in this, and is using the robotic module to provide the capabilities for its Mission Robotic Vehicle (MRV). At long last, f all goes well, MRV, with RSGS installed, will launch to GEO in February next year.

RSGS is the culmination of 23 years of research and development of space robotic systems by DARPA. First there was the highly successful Orbital Express experiment that flew in 2007, demonstrating autonomous docking, refueling and modular replacement by a robotic arm. The surrogate customer satellite in Orbital Express was highly modified in order to allow these operations. My own involvement began in 2003, with a laboratory program called Spacecraft for the Universal Modification of Orbits (SUMO). The point of that demonstration was to show that useful services could be provided to today’s satellites, without requiring modifications (the “Universal” in the name). The success of that program by 2005 led to the development of a highly capable space-suitable robotic arm, and years later to the RSGS program.

Last month, Northrop Grumman published the picture of MRV in its high bay in Dulles, Virginia. The RSGS payload was completed a year ago, and NRL conducted all of the environmental testing required for a space system. It was then shipped to the Dulles facility, where it was integrated onto a Northrop Grumman Geostar-3 bus to become MRV. To my surprise, it was then shipped BACK to the test facility at NRL for even more testing. Ultimately, it will be delivered to the launch site and sent to GEO on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Falcon 9 can only place this heavy spacecraft in a transfer orbit; MRV must then use its own onboard propulsion to complete the orbit raising to enter GEO. This will require several months, and will also expose MRV to intense radiation as it passes through the van Allen radiation belts. But some time in 2027, we can expect news of robotic activities being conducted on satellites belonging to Northrop Grumman’s customers. It has been announced that GEO operators Intelsat and Optus are customers for life extension by MRV.

Cost is one factor to be considered for military acquisitions, to be sure. But another is tactical utility. Two approaches to achieving a goal may differ in both. The trick is to get the most tactical utility for a given cost.

GOOD NEWS: in order to make a decision, the Space Force is investing in some real tests.  https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/space-force-picks-up-pace-of-on-orbit-refueling-experiments/

The US government’s budgeting system separates defense spending from other categories. This brings a certain myopia to spending decisions: benefits in other sectors are not admissible when it comes to defense expenditures. China does not suffer from this problem.

But at least we’re moving forward. And as the DoD convinces itself that on-orbit refueling is tactically crucial, they will  help industry mature the technology, inadvertently benefiting commercial satellites and NASA projects as well.

I would not have expected him to give a shout-out to space robotics or cislunar logistics. But both of his goals cry out for logistical support. This is good news for the industry and for the growth of the space economy.

Read more at https://spacenews.com/isaacman-says-nasa-should-pursue-human-moon-and-mars-programs-simultaneously/

Jared’s opening statement can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=madvwmQlLKg

With its SpaDex mission, India has demonstrated the ability to couple two satellites together in space without astronauts. You can read a brief discussion here:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/15/india/india-space-docking-attempt-intl-hnk/index.html

NOTE: that article is wrong about how many countries have demonstrated autonomous docking. It lists only the US, Russia and China as having accomplished this feat. However, Japan demonstrated it in 1997 with its highly successful Experimental Test Satellite VII (ETS-VII) demonstration, known as Kiku-7:

https://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/ets7/

Two telescopes, operating in space, are transforming our understanding of the universe. The Hubble Space Telescope is known around the world for its breathtaking images of galaxies, new-forming stars, and other astronomical phenomena. Much more recent, more powerful, but perhaps less well-known, the James Webb Space Telescope is complementing Hubble, but also looking deeper into the past (farther away from us, the same thing) and looking at different parts of the spectrum.

Two points of comparison are important. Point one: JWST’s 18 mirror segments combine to an equivalent aperture of over six meters, giving almost ten times the light collecting power of HST’s 2.3 meter mirror. Point two: HST was designed to be serviced–to have its instruments upgraded over time–which has kept it scientifically useful for over twenty years. It also enabled replacing some failing components, like gyroscopes and batteries. JWST’s instruments cannot be replaced. It will, at some point, become obsolete, even if no repairs are required.

NASA is now thinking ahead to the next great astrophysics observatory. The working name for this system, which aims to be launched in the 2040s, is the Habitable Worlds Observatory. This hints at one of its highest scientific priorities: taking measurements on exoplanets to see which ones might have atmospheres similar to Earth’s, and therefore capable of sustaining life. Here is a recent article on HWO:

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/search-for-life/nasa-wants-a-super-hubble-space-telescope-to-search-for-life-on-alien-worlds

When NASA Administrator Bill Nelson first announced HWO, his statement included that it “will be serviceable.” I was briefly part of a Technology Advisory Group for HWO that was trying to put some meat on that statement. What does serviceable mean for HWO? Instrument replacement, or merely life extension? And how should that be accomplished? How will the design of the telescope be affected by serviceability?

After a few months of government-industry collaboration, the initial concept development became a government-only activity. The community is waiting to see what comes of this. But there is the possibility for an opportunity to be lost: ensuring that not only will the telescope be serviceable, but that it be ASSEMBLED ON ORBIT BY ROBOTS from parts brought up on multiple launches. This is a critical step which promises reduced risk, reduced cost, and more benefits to the space industry.

Why do I say this? Five years ago, NASA had assembled a group to consider the on-orbit assembly of a large telescope. Called the In-Space Assembled Telescope (ISAT) study, it found that for a primary mirror of 8 meters or greater, on-orbit assembly would actually be cheaper than trying to launch the telescope all at once. Coincidentally that’s also about the size where it’s IMPOSSIBLE to launch on a single ride, because launch vehicle fairings (even Starship and New Glenn) aren’t that big.

But robotic on-orbit assembly also reduces risk to the program, in at least two ways: if a launch vehicle fails, you only lose some parts that were being delivered, not the whole instrument. And if any parts are found defective once they arrive on orbit, you simply launch replacements.

The ISAT study can be read here:

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exep/technology/in-space-assembly/iSAT_study/

NASA should ensure that the HWO studies give robust consideration to the robotic on-orbit assembly alternative.

Within 24 hours, two of the largest rockets ever flown made impressive flights.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn vehicle is the first rocket ever to achieve orbit on its maiden flight. SpaceX’s Starship flew for the seventh time, returning the booster to the launch pad once again for a successful capture (although the second stage experienced an explosion).

Such large rockets–New Glenn is expected to have a payload capacity of 45 metric tons, and Starship 100-150 metric tons–will stimulate the space economy by providing delivery to orbit at vastly lower prices.

But does anyone have a space program that requires 45, 100, or 150 tons in a SINGLE ORBIT? Such projects will be rare at best.

To take advantage of the predicted low costs to orbit, the company that develops refuelable orbit transfer vehicles–taking cargo from a single launch to multiple orbits–will unlock the real value of these vehicles.

Think about cargo container ships. These are by far the cheapest way of moving cargo thousands of miles. But at the unloading port, there are trucks and trains to take the cargo to many destinations.

In just the same way, orbit transfer vehicles can take cargo from New Glenn and Starship in LEO and move it to various orbits–GEO, Lagrange points, low Lunar orbit, etc.

If an orbit transfer vehicle is used only once, it’s just a third stage. But imagine if it could be refueled. That would enable the same savings that SpaceX (and soon Blue Origin) achieve by reusing their first stages.

And for maximum flexibility, those orbit transfer vehicles should be equipped with robotic arms. They can adapt to cargo of widely varied size and geometry.

Burgeoning space economy, here we come.

Here are some of the things that have kept me too busy to write:

• Helping Australia build its Space Robotics, Autonomy and AI Control Centre (SpAARC) in Perth
• Advising the US Defense Innovation Unit and helping it to start some new space logistics-focused programs
• Advising a space robotics company how best to use its novel robotics design
• Becoming part of a multi-university space robotics research effort funded by the US Space Force
• Advising a company that is building modules to be emplaced on satellites already in orbit
• Starting to write a book

In October, I attended the International Astronautical Congress in Milan, Italy. Space robotics and logistics were major topics being discussed by academic and corporate researchers from around the world. It is a good time to be in this field!

Then in November, I participated in the Global Satellite Servicing Forum conducted by CONFERS, the consortium that is developing standards for on-orbit servicing. Finally in December, I attended the “virtual convergence” of COSMIC, the NASA-sponsored consortium working to push ISAM forward into actual missions. I’ll report on these in more detail later. And I promise I won’t let another two years go by before adding new thoughts!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-end-of-astronauts-review-one-small-step-for-robots-11650320331?page=1

Most engineering projects start with establishing the requirements, part of the process known as systems engineering. Set the objectives, in terms of data collection, communications throughput, launch vehicle payload, or whatever. The top-level requirements throughout the history of human spaceflight have been non-engineering ones: we have to beat the Soviets; we have to maintain our expertise in spaceflight; we have to inspire the next generation; and so on.

Rees and Goldsmith are really trying to take a systems engineering approach: IF we want to collect data on solar system bodies, THEN what is the optimum engineering answer? They conclude that robots are superior for THAT application. Their attention-grabbing title is an overreach.

An important tool of systems engineering is the “trade study.” What are the parameters that we consider important to accomplish a given engineering project, and which options provide a better solution. For planetary exploration, the key parameters are cost and productivity. Humans have the advantages of being perceptive, creative, insightful and adaptable. They are also hungry, thirsty, temperature-sensitive, liable to physiological failures from radiation and microgravity, and experience psychological stress during long periods of isolation. Robots are physically robust, but unable to respond to the unanticipated.

In 2003, the space shuttle Columbia was lost upon reentry, with the cost of seven human lives. The following year, NASA began worrying about the health of the Hubble Space Telescope. How were they going to replace the aging gyroscopes and batteries when the Space Shuttle wasn’t flying? I was an advocate for doing the replacement robotically, without astronauts; NASA just thought the technology wasn’t ready. Today, it would be a breeze.

The image at the head of this post contains both a human and a robot on the lunar surface. Notice that the human habitat is covered with “Moon dirt,” regolith–that’s to shield the inhabitants from cosmic radiation. It would be foolish to plan for humans to dig up all that regolith and pile it onto the habitat–that’s one of the dull, dirty and dangerous tasks much more suited for robotic labor. But if there is a failure of a scientific instrument at the station, the human is the one to repair it.

In the long run, we must become a multi-planet species. With that as the highest-level systems engineering requirement, NASA and commercial managers must insist on careful, unemotional trade studies at every step, to minimize cost, maximize productivity, and avoid tragedy. What humans do, and what robots do, is too important a choice to leave to emotion.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/04-2022-ISAM-National-Strategy-Final.pdf

Now, the White House is looking for YOUR input on what the next steps should be. They have released a “Request for Public Comment” on how to implement the ISAM strategy:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/04/2022-09549/notice-of-request-for-comment

Don’t miss the chance to give your input on how to move forward in advanced space concepts!!