Space: NASA, Space Force, and What's Next

When Space Aspirations Collide

The narrative around space exploration often drifts into the realm of pure aspiration – a boundless frontier, technological marvels, and the relentless pursuit of progress. But as these ambitions become increasingly tangible, a colder, more data-driven reality emerges. Recent events, from stranded astronauts to Google's plans for orbital datacenters and even the potential identification of ancient space junk, expose the friction between the dream and the dollars (and, increasingly, the debris).

The stranding of the Shenzhou-20 crew is a stark example. A piece of "suspected space junk" has, at least temporarily, turned a routine return into a high-stakes logistical problem. While details are still emerging, the incident throws into sharp relief the growing congestion in low Earth orbit. The article mentions one of the station's solar panels was struck by debris in 2023, which triggered a partial power outage. How many near misses aren't reported? And what's the long-term cost of constant course corrections and shielding upgrades? The problem isn't just the existence of junk; it's the exponential increase and the lack of effective mitigation strategies. What liability framework exists for collisions in space? Is it even enforceable? Three Chinese astronauts stranded in space after debris hits their return capsule

Google's Project Suncatcher, the plan to put AI datacenters in space, presents a different set of economic and environmental questions. The claim that space-based datacenters could be cost-competitive with terrestrial ones by the mid-2030s hinges on the plummeting cost of space launches. But even if launch costs do fall as projected, the environmental impact of those launches is a significant factor. The article notes that a single rocket launch emits hundreds of tonnes of CO2. So, while solar panels in space might be "up to eight times more productive" than those on Earth, the carbon footprint of getting them there needs to be factored into the equation. A true cost-benefit analysis seems conspicuously absent. Has Google factored in the cost of maintaining and repairing these satellites? What's the plan for deorbiting and disposing of them at the end of their lifespan?

The Ghost of Missions Past

Then there's the curious case of object Arjuna 2025 PN7, now suspected to be Zond 1, a Soviet spacecraft that failed its mission to Venus in 1964. The hypothesis is that the object could actually be Zond 1, a Soviet spacecraft that was destined for Venus but broke down. Even if the object is not the actual probe intended for Venus, it might still be a throwaway rocket phase from that mission. This isn't just about identifying space junk; it's about acknowledging the long-term legacy—and potential hazards—of our spacefaring activities. The initial assessment of Arjuna 2025 PN7 classified it as a quasi-moon. How many other misidentified objects are lurking out there, and what are the chances of a collision with active satellites?

I've looked at enough failed mission reports to know that the "official" explanation is rarely the whole story. Were corners cut? Were safety protocols followed? The lack of transparency around early Soviet space efforts makes any definitive conclusion impossible.

The Space Force's focus on "dynamic space operations" (DSO) is a necessary, albeit belated, response to these challenges. The Mitchell Institute report rightly emphasizes the need for on-orbit refueling, repair, and even the ability to add or replace mission capabilities. But implementing DSO will require a fundamental shift in mindset and significant investment. The report recommends that the service’s new requirement that any new constellation to replace the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP) neighborhood watch satellites sport refueling capabilities, should also incorporate “the capacity to replace or add mission capability.” How will the Space Force balance the need for redundancy and resilience with the escalating costs of these advanced capabilities? And can they move quickly enough to stay ahead of China, which is actively developing counterspace weapon systems? From on-orbit to launch, Space Force needs more focus on dynamic space operations

A Dose of Orbital Realism

Space exploration is inherently risky and expensive. The recent events serve as a reminder that the romantic vision of boundless expansion needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of data-driven realism. We need a more comprehensive understanding of the economic, environmental, and logistical challenges that lie ahead. Otherwise, we risk turning the promise of space into a costly and unsustainable endeavor.

Reality Check

The data suggests the "space race" is less about bold leaps and more about risk management.