NASA - Updates Only

[BlueAbyssal]

There doesn’t seem to be much rational thinking behind moving a Shuttle again.

If you’re asking about general values in spaceflight, there are at least three major camps, broadly defined as follows:

• The Saganists: robotic exploration is the way to go, Earth is our home, maybe humans are involved, but only in small numbers.
• The Apollonians: space is the province of the state, big government programs to put a few humans on another body for brief periods is what spaceflight is all about.
• The O’Neillians: the reason to go to space is massive economic expansion and settlement.

The concerns about ‘tech bros’ and ‘Trump’s people’ usually come from the Apollonians. Their ideology has been dominant inside NASA for many decades, and they’re used to how things have worked for nearly so long. There are established rules and patterns that they want to see followed, and they see the third group breaking those rules. The grievance types are a mix of Apollonians and Saganists, some of whom prefer state efforts and distrust the private sector, some who dislike the idea of settling space and think it can only be effectively done by robots anyway, and some other ideologies. There are subfactions-greens, accelerationists, Mars Firsters, doomers, and so on, but I think those are the broadest applicable categories.

Ultimately what all groups want is the same-power-but to express that power very differently. The O’Neillian group is by far the broadest, as any real settlement effort needs a good deal of exploration and robotic support to work. If Artemis was explicitly about laying the groundwork for lunar industry and science, and in a big way, the cost per astronaut using the SLS/Orion would be easier to justify. Unfortunately, for most of our leaders the point has been to reward favored contractors, and keep parking lots full. Not actually do anything.

To handicap it, in terms of what’s most to least difficult in spaceflight, I’d say: politics, funding, technical. If we don’t agree on the reasons to go, we won’t agree about the others and they’ll be harder to solve. An issue for me is that a good many people don’t seem to have thought about why they support what they do, they just went with the status quo, and so when engaged about it, they either shut down or attack instead of communicate.

 

[Flyaway]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-topples-towers-used-to-test-saturn-rockets-space-shuttle/

 

[publiusr]

• The Saganists: robotic exploration is the way to go, Earth is our home, maybe humans are involved, but only in small numbers.
• The Apollonians: space is the province of the state, big government programs to put a few humans on another body for brief periods is what spaceflight is all about.
• The O’Neillians: the reason to settle space is massive economic expansion and settlement.

The Apollonians (Von Braunians is the name I heard) don’t think it is the sole province of the state—just that it be funded properly.

Humans are about to return to the Moon due to the same folks who want to rob shuttles.

An old fart wanting a legacy can get things done that don’t fly otherwise.

There are subfactions-greens, accelerationists, Mars Firsters, doomers, and so on, but I think those are the broadest applicable categories.

Moon vs Mars gets pretty heated.
Civilian vs Military. Solids vs liquids.

In aviation, there is enough money to go around so that bomber and fighter guys can both break them off a piece.

With half-starved space-advocates…it gets uglier.

I think the hate-Washington/hate government types simply want DC razed. That’s what is really behind this.

I get disgust of the Beltway—but that’s a people issue.

By the way….Space News has a great opinion piece about how more outsiders should be welcomed in space—-a opinion piece that is paywalled…on a site that has banned pro Old Space Disqus members:

https://spacenews.com/bringing-outsiders-into-the-space-fold/
Ah…the irony.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

Food for thought regarding NASA reforms:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010807942547980713

View: https://x.com/joelsercel/status/2010807942547980713?s=46

 

[Flyaway]

Putting this here as Kelly is a former NASA astronaut as well as military vet.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...y-pete-hegseth-efforts-reduce-mili-rcna253658

 

[Byeman]

The Apollonians (Von Braunians is the name I heard) don’t think it is the sole province of the state—just that it be funded properly.

A distinction without a difference. "funding" is "province" of the state. Non state entities don't get "funded", they raise capital by other means.

 

[Byeman]

Humans are about to return to the Moon due to the same folks who want to rob shuttles.

Unsubstantiated. That opinion is not shared by those in the industry or with direct knowledge.

 

[Byeman]

With half-starved space-advocates…it gets uglier.

Define "half-starved". There is plenty of state money given to the space program. It is just funding the wrong projects like SLS.

 

[Flyaway]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011205018943123533

View: https://twitter.com/NASAAdmin/status/2011205018943123533

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman

@NASAAdmin
·

Langley should be a hypersonics center of excellence. We already have strong test capabilities, and we should modernize and concentrate resources here, especially in hypersonics, as we blur the line between operating inside and outside Earth’s atmosphere.

Building new infrastructure here makes sense, particularly in hypersonics, while thoughtfully redirecting resources from facilities that served us well decades ago so we can stay focused on the future.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011206762330804330

View: https://twitter.com/NASAAdmin/status/2011206762330804330

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman

@NASAAdmin
·
When you look across NASA, every center has unique strengths. Competition between centers isn’t the right approach. Some excel in aeronautics, others in planetary science, mission control, or launches.

As we prepare for the future, including building a sustained presence on the Moon, we’ll look across the agency to ensure each center’s expertise is applied where it fits best.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011271367392707011

View: https://twitter.com/NASAAdmin/status/2011271367392707011

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman

@NASAAdmin
Out at @NASAKennedy, meeting with the workforce where America reaches for the stars.

This is the team preparing to fly two human spaceflight missions in parallel, Artemis II and Crew-12, while advancing commercial access to space, building the orbital economy, and launching more missions of science and discovery.

I spent today meeting with the workforce and our partners, taking the tough questions, focusing on what is broken so we can fix it, and learning what works so we can do more of it.

Proud to work alongside such a talented and motivated team.

 

[Flyaway]

NASA’s SpaceX Crew-11 Mission Returns, Splashes Down off California [Jan 15]

NASA’s SpaceX Crew-11 mission safely splashed down early Thursday morning in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego, concluding a more than five-month mission aboard the International Space Station.

NASA astronauts Zena Cardman and Mike Fincke, JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut Kimiya Yui, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Oleg Platonov returned to Earth at 12:41 a.m. PST. Teams aboard SpaceX recovery vessels retrieved the spacecraft and its crew shortly after landing.

“I couldn’t be prouder of our astronauts and the teams on the ground at NASA, SpaceX, and across our international partnerships,” said NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. “Their professionalism and focus kept the mission on track, even with an adjusted timeline. Crew-11 completed more than 140 science experiments that advance human exploration. Missions like Crew-11 demonstrate the capability inherent in America’s space program—our ability to bring astronauts home as needed, launch new crews quickly, and continue pushing forward on human spaceflight as we prepare for our historic Artemis II mission, from low Earth orbit to the Moon and ultimately Mars.”

Crew-11 returned home about a month earlier than planned because of a medical concern teams are monitoring with one of the crew members, who remains stable. Due to medical privacy, it is not appropriate for NASA to share more details about the crew member. Prior to return, NASA previously coordinated for all four crew members to be transported to a local hospital for additional evaluation, taking advantage of medical resources on Earth to provide the best care possible.

Following the planned overnight hospital stay, the crew members will return to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and undergo standard postflight reconditioning and evaluations.

The Crew-11 mission lifted off at 11:43 a.m. EDT on Aug.1, 2025, from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. About 15 hours later, the crew’s SpaceX Dragon spacecraft docked to the orbital outpost at 1:27 a.m. CDT on Aug. 2.

During their 167-day mission, the four crew members traveled nearly 71 million miles and completed more than 2,670 orbits around Earth. The Crew-11 mission was Fincke’s fourth spaceflight, Yui’s second, and the first for Cardman and Platonov. Fincke has logged 549 days in space, ranking him fourth among all NASA astronauts for cumulative days in space.

Along the way, Crew-11 logged hundreds of hours of research, maintenance, and technology demonstrations. The crew members also celebrated the 25th anniversary of continuous human presence aboard the orbiting laboratory on Nov. 2, 2025. Research conducted aboard the space station advances scientific knowledge and demonstrates new technologies that enable us to prepare for human exploration of the Moon and Mars.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011751551895851008

View: https://twitter.com/NASA/status/2011751551895851008

LIVE: After Crew-11's splashdown off the coast of California earlier this morning, @NASAAdmin and agency leaders are sharing mission updates and taking questions from media.

 

[Flyaway]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011550104608498109

View: https://twitter.com/NASAAdmin/status/2011550104608498109

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman

@NASAAdmin
·
Yesterday, I met with SpaceX and Blue Origin to understand the latest plans to accelerate NASA’s Artemis timeline.

The capabilities these two partners are pioneering will be essential to returning NASA astronauts to the lunar surface, establishing an enduring presence, and advancing American leadership on the Moon and beyond.

To meet President Trump’s National Space Policy objectives, we will challenge every requirement, clear every obstacle, delete every blocker and empower the team to deliver....and we will do it with time to spare

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011984949654495679

View: https://twitter.com/NASAAdmin/status/2011984949654495679

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman

@NASAAdmin
·

From the Saturn era to today, @NASAStennis has been central to propulsion testing that makes our boldest missions possible. As we prepare to send astronauts back to the Moon, that work continues - testing engines, validating performance, and doing the hard, methodical work that flight depends on. That includes a growing slate of commercial engines being proven here on the test stands, a key part of developing America’s orbital economy.

But the clearest signal of why Stennis matters is the workforce. The people here bring discipline, judgment, and a real sense of responsibility to work that has no shortcuts, and they’re focused on what comes next. The center has been deliberate about preparing for the future, building partnerships, and positioning itself to support emerging capabilities that will define the next era.

 

[Flyaway]

NASA Statement

The four crew members of NASA's SpaceX Crew-11 mission have arrived at the agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston, where they will continue standard postflight reconditioning and evaluations. As part of Crew-11, NASA astronauts Zena Cardman and Mike Fincke, JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut Kimiya Yui, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Oleg Platonov safely splashed down on Jan. 15 off the coast of San Diego, successfully completing a more than five month mission aboard the International Space Station. Following splashdown and recovery, the four crew members completed a planned overnight stay at a local medical facility for additional evaluation and have been released as expected. All crew members remain stable. To protect the crew's medical privacy, no specific details regarding the condition or individual will be shared.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012282559611261058

View: https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/2012282559611261058/photo/1

 

[publiusr]

I am glad he said this

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011206762330804330

 

[Byeman]

I am glad he said this

It wasn't Marshall vs other centers, it is vs industry. Once industry can do the task, the gov't needs to get out of the way.

 

[publiusr]

Once industry can do the task, the gov't needs to get out of the way.

It wasn’t long ago you complained that guys in your office were sent packing.

Never ask for something you don’t want.

 

[Byeman]

It wasn’t long ago you complained that guys in your office were sent packing.

My former job and their jobs can't be done by contractors.

 

[publiusr]

My former job and their jobs can't be done by contractors.

I am sure a lot of folks who felt the ax thought the same.

It has always been easier to destroy than create.

“Creative destruction,” “fail fast/forward” is what is in vogue today. I had bosses that fussed that I made too much overtime…on account of the kids they hired washing out.

One let me go… and his hole-in-the-wall company didn’t last a month.

Unions need a comeback

 

[Byeman]

I am sure a lot of folks who felt the ax thought the same.

There is no thinking, it is fact.
My coworkers and I created statements of work and directed the contractors, which can't be done by contractors

 

[Flyaway]

Included here as NASA is amongst the agencies mentioned.

Black on white (or rainbow on black, rather):
https://bsky.app/profile/davidho.bsky.social/post/3mcvapxcwqk2a

This is the most astonishing graph of what the Trump regime has done to US science. They have destroyed the federal science workforce across the board. The negative impacts on Americans will be felt for generations, and the US might never be the same again.
This line graph illustrates the percentage change in agency staff levels from the previous year for nine major U.S. federal scientific and health organizations between the fiscal years 2016 and 2025. The agencies tracked include the CDC, Department of Energy, EPA, FDA, NASA, NIH, NIST, NOAA, and NSF. For the majority of the timeline between 2016 and 2023, the agencies show relatively stable fluctuations, generally staying within a range of +5% to -5% change per year. However, there is a dramatic and uniform plummet starting in the 2024–25 period. Every agency depicted shows a sharp downward trajectory, with staffing losses ranging from approximately -15% to over -25%. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows the most significant decline, dropping to roughly -26%, while the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) shows the least severe but still substantial drop at approximately -15%.

US science after a year of Trump: what has been lost and what remains [Nature]

 

[Flyaway]

House appropriator sees ‘room for improvement’ in NASA funding for 2027
by Jeff Foust
January 23, 2026

WASHINGTON — With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process effectively complete, a key House appropriator says the next spending bill for NASA should build on that outcome.

A minibus appropriations package that included the Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) spending bill passed Congress earlier this month, providing $24.438 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2026. The measure largely rejected a proposed cut of nearly 25% for the agency in the White House budget request released last May.
“It felt kind of gloomy for a few months,” acknowledged Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., ranking member of the CJS appropriations subcommittee, during a Jan. 22 fireside chat on Capitol Hill organized by the Progressive Policy Institute.

“This is a really good example of how, if we are persistent and we talk about the merit, we can make a difference,” she said of the final bill.

Meng highlighted the restoration of science funding, from $3.9 billion in the administration’s request to $7.25 billion in the enacted bill, just below the fiscal year 2025 level of $7.33 billion. The legislation also includes language limiting NASA’s ability to transfer funds between missions.

“Everyone doesn’t necessarily have the same priority when we’re taking a look at NASA and CJS funding, and this helps us make sure they actually spend the money where Congress, legally and in a bipartisan way, intended it to be spent,” she said.

…

While work on the fiscal year 2026 spending bill has concluded, the space community is already looking ahead to fiscal year 2027. Federal law requires the White House to release its budget proposal on the first Monday in February, but that deadline is often missed, and industry officials do not expect a proposal until March.
Regardless of what the administration proposes, Meng said she wants NASA funding to remain stable or grow in 2027.

“This package was obviously better than we originally anticipated, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement,” she said of the fiscal year 2026 minibus. “We want to, at the very least, hold to a minimum what we were able to collectively accomplish for this fiscal year.”

One priority she cited for the 2027 bill is NASA’s plan to land humans on the moon on the Artemis 3 mission, following a White House executive order issued in December that formally set a 2028 deadline for the landing.
Another is NASA’s plan to deorbit the International Space Station at the end of the decade and transition to one or more commercial space stations. “These five years will, especially in the NASA world, go by in a flash,” she said.

…

She added that she is “cautiously optimistic” about NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and his plans for the agency, while noting concerns about the impact of workforce reductions over the past year. Those included buyout programs that led to the departure of about 20% of NASA’s civil servant workforce.
Meng said those effects were evident during a recent visit to NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center with Reps. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

“We saw the direct impact of the more than 1,000 employees who are no longer there — not just their work, but the empty chairs and the morale of many of the employees,” she said.

“We have a lot of makeup work to do,” Meng added, “but we’ll be optimistic, and hopefully this budget helps restore them to where they need to be.”

https://spacenews.com/house-appropriator-sees-room-for-improvement-in-nasa-funding-for-2027/
NASA press release here, and reproduced below:

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past year, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and Planetary Science Division (PSD) have undergone many changes, including my arrival as PSD Director in April 2025. It is my honor to serve the planetary science community, which has long been my professional home, in this new role. One of my top priorities has been determining a future path for the PSD Analysis and Assessment Groups (‘AGs’)—specifically defining the nature of their relationship with PSD.

For many years, the eight PSD AGs have served as community-based, interdisciplinary bodies responsible for providing science input and analysis needed to plan and prioritize NASA planetary science research and exploration activities. Open to all, these groups have fostered collaboration, built consensus, and strengthened ties across the planetary science community. The full significance of the AGs to NASA—to both PSD and the Explorations Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD)—is difficult to quantify, but the primary values include:

Sustained channels for trusted two-way communication between NASA and the planetary science community;
Agile mechanisms for creating Special Action Teams or obtaining technical assessments, on topics of immediate interest to NASA;
Fostering a cadre of community members, including early-career scientists, who are cognizant of NASA’s functions and processes, and building leaders in the planetary science community; and
Organization of (and repository for) the planetary science community’s consensus opinions and assessments.
Currently, the AGs operate under NASA-endorsed Terms of Reference (available on the AGs’ websites) and they receive financial support for some of their activities (including meeting logistics, community and steering committee travel awards, partial Chair salary, and website support), provided via a grant to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. Several recent changes in the NASA landscape, however, make continuing the current support and operations model infeasible. These changes include: Executive Orders; elimination of formal Advisory Committees, including the Planetary Science Advisory Committee, to which the AGs used to report; changes in grant administration rules; and a highly constrained PSD budget.

With all these considerations, over the last year, we in PSD have been evaluating potential options for the AGs—with the aim of retaining as much of their primary value as possible, consistent with applicable laws and policies, while substantially reducing the budgetary commitment from PSD. Unfortunately, despite the recognized value of the AGs, PSD can no longer formally support the AGs (note that this decision applies only to the PSD AGs).

Although the current grant mechanism that supports AG activities will cease toward the end of April 2026, we plan to maintain some funding for specific community activities that are of the most value to PSD and NASA after that time. For example, it may be possible to request a small amount of funding to support community meetings or workshops via a future competitive solicitation. I also plan to continue two-way communication with the community, e.g., at conferences and other organized meetings. In addition, we may solicit scientific analyses/assessments from the community on an ad-hoc/as-needed basis—and will use other funding mechanisms to provide support for the selected membership of those groups, as allowable.

I want to thank everyone in the community—especially the AG Chairs and Steering Committees—for their inputs and feedback during this process, which helped inform the path forward. I also want to extend thanks to the Lunar and Planetary Institute for their continued logistical support of the AGs over the last several years.

This decision does not automatically force the AGs to be dissolved—they have the opportunity to evolve and innovate as self-organized entities that continue to help advance planetary exploration. I know change can be unsettling and challenging, but the AGs have helped build a strong foundation for our field. I am confident in the resilience and creativity of our community to reimagine the planetary science landscape, as one that is agile and responsive to NASA priorities and welcoming to all, as we continue to explore the Solar System.

The final NASA-supported AG meetings will occur by the end of April 2026. I look forward to seeing many of you at one of these meetings, or in another venue soon. This year I also plan to provide more-regular updates for the community via emails and virtual meetings, so there will be plenty of upcoming opportunities for conversation.

With best wishes for a happy and successful 2026,

Dr. Louise M. Prockter
NASA Planetary Science Division Director

Posted January 16, 2026

 

[Flyaway]

Full interview with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFHphUk2oJA

 

[Flyaway]

NASA Closes Goddard Campus Library, Jan 20
https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/nasa-closes-goddard-campus-library
NASA shut its biggest library and trashed priceless materials
Story by Cassian Holt
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...y-and-trashed-priceless-materials/ar-AA1TxCRT

Some portion of the collection is expected to be warehoused, but coverage of the plan makes clear that storage is not the same as access or preservation. One detailed account notes that NASA's largest research library at Goddard Space will see its materials either warehoused or discarded, with no guarantee that warehoused items will be cataloged, digitized or made available to researchers. That description appears in reporting on how the NASA's largest research library is being broken up, and it underscores why so many scientists describe the process as a form of cultural vandalism carried out under the cover of administrative housekeeping.

Does anyone know where the discarded library materials from Goddard will be going?

https://www.reddit.com/r/nasa/comments/1qi3okb/does_anyone_know_where_the_discarded_library

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/nasa/comments/1qi3okb/does_anyone_know_where_the_discarded_library/

 

[dannydale]

Included here as NASA is amongst the agencies mentioned.

Black on white (or rainbow on black, rather):
https://bsky.app/profile/davidho.bsky.social/post/3mcvapxcwqk2a



US science after a year of Trump: what has been lost and what remains [Nature]

This is what a country being dismantled for a century of humiliation looks like.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

That’s an incredible exaggeration, especially given how badly American science has been harmed through politicization and poor spending habits. Rather, it’s more akin to clearing out forests to promote healthy growth.

The people who depend on being able to twist science to suit their narrow-minded dogma may be humiliated. The rest of us won’t be.

 

[martinbayer]

Punch up, then make up?

No. Making up is *NOT* part of the German DNA.

 

[Flyaway]

Note that the current administration has pulled funding for all of those groups. Keith says "today" Jan 31st but I believe it was last week:

https://nasawatch.com/trumpspace/all-nasa-planetary-science-analysis-assessment-groups-paused/
All NASA Planetary Science Analysis/Assessment Groups Paused

NASA Science Mission Directorate sent this memo out today: “As NASA continues to review and ensure compliance with presidential actions, we are requesting that you please pause all meetings and activities of Planetary Science Analysis/Assessment Groups. This includes ExMAG, LEAG, MAPSIT, MEPAG, MExAG, OPAG, OWWG, SBAG, VEXAG, the cross-AG EDIA Working Group, and any other groups or activities that have been developed by the AGs. Please make your communities aware of this request. If you are no longer the chair of one of these AGs or AG-associated groups, please let me know so I can ensure the appropriate folks receive this information.”

 

[dannydale]

https://nasawatch.com/trumpspace/all-nasa-planetary-science-analysis-assessment-groups-paused/
All NASA Planetary Science Analysis/Assessment Groups Paused

Yup. Dismantling for parts. Good job /pol/.

 

[Flyaway]

Aero Big Mike
@AeroBigMike
·
2m
I noticed 3 notable things about this bill-

1st- continued support for SLS. Given SLS Block 1 is already mostly paid off- any additional supports goes to Block 1B or Block 2. So that’s more support for that.

2nd- plans to make public HLS costs from BO & SpaceX.

Aero Big Mike
@AeroBigMike
·
2m
3rd- a request for Mars Sample Return funding appropriations. It won’t revive MSR but it will give NASA a chance to argue its revival under that proposed funding plan.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2018449771887735013

View: https://twitter.com/AeroBigMike/status/2018449771887735013

 

[publiusr]

While many lament politicians involvement in all things space---they can quietly blunt some of their fellows cost-cutting zealotry on the down-low. Libertarians rail against "pork" but that is a type of self-interest too. Besides, if 'the best part is no part,' then by Elon's own criteria... four liquid fuel engines are better than 40.

 

[Byeman]

Besides, if 'the best part is no part,' then by Elon's own criteria... four liquid fuel engines are better than 40.

That would be your typical attempt of misinformation. Actually, you got the "no part" wrong. 40 reusable liquid engines are better
than four liquid fuel single use engines that require two noxious expendable SRBs.

 

[Flyaway]

https://spacenews.com/house-nasa-bill-seeks-details-on-lunar-lander-and-spacesuit-development/

A NASA authorization bill the House Science Committee is scheduled to take up this week would require closer scrutiny of lunar lander and spacesuit development for the Artemis program.

...

Although the Mars Sample Return program was effectively canceled in the fiscal 2026 minibus spending bill, the authorization legislation would direct NASA to continue pursuing the program “subject to the availability of appropriations.” It would require NASA, within 180 days of enactment, to submit a report outlining its proposed approach to Mars Sample Return, including a mission architecture and “realistic cost and schedule estimates.”

 

[Flyaway]

With the news that NASA will be giving astronauts modern smartphones, presumably iPhones (which have been flown on non NASA flights) here's an example of something already on the ISS an iPod touch, but that's very close in design to the iPhone.

Does anyone have any clues as to what this iPod Touch is used for on the Russian segment of the ISS? It's in some kind of enclosuer with an oddly positioned connector.
At least I'm pretty sure it's an iPod Touch, and an old one based upon the size and the old install of iOS

https://twitter.com/x/status/2019455883546083495

View: https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/2019455883546083495

Apple Watches have flown on a few ISS missions, and I've also seen AirPod Pros flown

Scott Manley
@DJSnM
The iPad which flew on Artemis I

https://twitter.com/x/status/2019455891381055635

View: https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/2019455891381055635

 

[BlueAbyssal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2019855583990489505

View: https://x.com/spcplcyonline/status/2019855583990489505?s=46

 

[Flyaway]

My Talk With Jared Isaacman: 50 Days as Head of NASA:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utCSUJov8J8

 

[publiusr]

It looks like the shine is wearing off…in that the scales have fallen away from his eyes:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2019823962465923366

View: https://x.com/NASAAdmin/status/2019823962465923366


He is starting to sound more and more like Mike Griffin….in that Jared is talking about more in-house competency. If Elon can buy up COPV makers for vertical integration, then don’t be angry if Uncle Sam does the same.

I like Jared more and more.

Needless to say, NewSpacer armchair ref’s are spewing over this turn of events. They need to turn off talk radio awhile.

Jared is beginning to see reason…not selling out. He has been in the position long enough to have listened to folks older than him.

 

[Byeman]

He is starting to sound more and more like Mike Griffin….in that Jared is talking about more in-house competency. If Elon can buy up COPV makers for vertical integration, then don’t be angry if Uncle Sam does the same.

That would be wrong. Uncle Sam can't do the same. There is no reason for NASA to duplicate what industry does nor is there any reason for the US government to nationalize any space related industries.

What he is talking about is using less support contractors and use more civil servants.
This is not about more hands on, especially for launch vehicles.

Needless to say, NewSpacer armchair ref’s are spewing over this turn of events. They need to turn off talk radio awhile.

Based on what information? Is it posted anywhere? Is there a blog, interview, report, video showing this?

Sources please.

Jared is beginning to see reason…not selling out. He has been in the position long enough to have listened to folks older than him.

You are reading the wrong thing into this. NASA is going to use more commercial services now than even before.

 

[Flyaway]

Mods please delete if considered too OT.

What Americans lose if their National Center for Atmospheric Research is dismantled​

https://www.space.com/astronomy/ear...center-for-atmospheric-research-is-dismantled

 

[Byeman]

Mods please delete if considered too OT.

What Americans lose if their National Center for Atmospheric Research is dismantled​

https://www.space.com/astronomy/ear...center-for-atmospheric-research-is-dismantled

Not NASA related.

 

[Flyaway]

NASA has been told to not spend money on a bunch of science missions.

https://nasawatch.com/space-science-news/some-smd-activities-paused-pending-omb-guidance/
It's not just Earth science targeted. It is astrophysics and planetary as well. And they are doing this against the will of the Congress at a time when spending on other things is increasing.

This is a determined attempt to shrink American scientific capacity.

I think we can guess what the FY2027 budget is going to look like.

White House withholds NASA science funds
The administration did not say why it had done so.
Audrey Decker

The Artemis II SLS rocket with the Orion spacecraft sits top a mobile launcher on Jan. 29 at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.Jim Ross/NASA via AP

The Office of Management and Budget is withholding money for NASA’s science missions, a move that bucks Congress and goes against a funding bill signed into law.

Officials have directed the space agency to pause funds for a host of science missions the White House originally pushed to cancel in its 2026 budget request, according to an email sent to the agency’s centers from NASA headquarters and obtained by POLITICO.

The email didn’t explain why the administration is holding funds, which are limited to science missions, but Trump has sought to slash federal funds for scientific research and climate-change related activities. The missions listed in the email include key programs that study the Earth, climate-related efforts and programs that study other planets in the universe.

[Rest of article is behind a paywall]

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/02/white-house-withholds-nasa-science-funds-00775980

 

[Flyaway]

Also this from Blackstar over at NSF:

I got some new info. Apparently this policy of hiring more people is a result of all the people they lost last year. They're now realizing how much expertise they have lost and they want to regain it. And apparently they're talking about hiring a lot of the contractors who already work at NASA as civil servants, although those contractors may not want to become civil servants. There's some other stuff, but I'll hold off on that.