The hunt for exoplanets has apparently led to a few near misses. MIT researchers have discovered that three "planets" observed using the Kepler Space Telescope (Kepler-699b, Kepler-840b and Kepler-854b) are more likely to be small stars. They're simply too big, the scientists found — at two to four times Jupiter's size, they're larger than the largest confirmed planets.

A fourth, Kepler-747b, might also be ruled out. It's small enough ('just' 1.8 times Jupiter's size) to be a planet, but it's distant enough that it doesn't receive enough light to be sustainable. It's "not entirely implausible" that 747b is a planet, according to MIT, but you won't want to make any bets.

The team found the discrepancies after obtaining improved measurements from the European Space Agency's Gaia observatory and double-checking the original classifications. Astronomers were only looking for tidal distortion at first, but noticed odd ellipsoidal signals (the ellipsoid shapes that hint at gravitational pull) that were too large for planets.

MIT doesn't expect many more false planets. This is a "tiny correction," the school's Avi Shporer said. As it stands, this refinement is just what the scientists want — it produces more reliable data that should help with other, broader exoplanet studies.

When the United Arab Emirates launched the Arab world’s first-ever mission to Mars in the summer of 2020, its desire was that its Hope probe would help provide scientists with a better understanding of the Red Planet’s weather systems. And it’s now done exactly that. According to The National, the probe recently spent two weeks tracking a massive dust storm across the surface of Mars.

Hope began following the weather event on December 29th. The probe entered the orbit of Mars equipped with a high-resolution camera and an infrared spectrometer. It used those tools to track the geographic distribution of dust, water vapor and carbon dioxide ice clouds displaced by the raging storm. Its orbital position allowed Hope to observe any variance in those elements in timescales measured in minutes and days, a feat previous missions to Mars didn’t have the ability to do. 

What it saw was how quickly a storm can spread across the red planet. In the span of a single week, the storm it was tracking grew to stretch across more than 1,550 miles of Martian surface. In the process, it completely obscured geographic landmarks like the Hellas impact crater and sent dust haze as far as 2,485 miles away from the origin point of the storm. In addition to providing a play-by-play of a Martian storm, scientists hope the data Hope collected will allow them to gain a better understanding of how those storms can help water escape the planet's atmosphere.

Mildred Dresselhaus' life was one in defiance of odds. Growing up poor in the Bronx — and even more to her detriment, growing up a woman in the 1940s — Dresselhaus' traditional career options were paltry. Instead, she rose to become one of the world's preeminent experts in carbon science as well as the first female Institute Professor at MIT, where she spent 57 years of her career. She collaborated with physics luminaries like Enrico Fermi and laid the essential groundwork for future Nobel Prize winning research, directed the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy and was herself awarded the National Medal of Science. 

In the excerpt below from Carbon Queen: The Remarkable Life of Nanoscience Pioneer Mildred Dresselhaus, author and Deputy Editorial Director at MIT News, Maia Weinstock, tells of the time that Dresselhaus collaborated with Iranian American physicist Ali Javan to investigate exactly how charge carriers — ie electrons — move about within a graphite matrix, research that would completely overturn the field's understanding of how these subatomic particles operate.  

MIT Press

Excerpted from Carbon Queen: The Remarkable Life of Nanoscience Pioneer Mildred Dresselhaus by Maia Weinstock. Reprinted with permission from The MIT Press. Copyright 2022.

A CRITICAL ABOUT-FACE

For anyone with a research career as long and as accomplished as that of Mildred S. Dresselhaus, there are bound to be certain papers that might get a bit lost in the corridors of the mind—papers that make only moderate strides, perhaps, or that involve relatively little effort or input (when, for example, being a minor consulting author on a paper with many coauthors). Conversely, there are always standout papers that one can never forget—for their scientific impact, for coinciding with particularly memorable periods of one’s career, or for simply being unique or beastly experiments.

Millie’s first major research publication after becoming a permanent member of the MIT faculty fell into the standout category. It was one she described time and again in recollections of her career, noting it as “an interesting story for history of science.”

The story begins with a collaboration between Millie and Iranian American physicist Ali Javan. Born in Iran to Azerbaijani parents, Javan was a talented scientist and award-winning engineer who had become well known for his invention of the gas laser. His helium-neon laser, coinvented with William Bennett Jr. when both were at Bell Labs, was an advance that made possible many of the late twentieth century’s most important technologies—from CD and DVD players to bar-code scanning systems to modern fiber optics.

After publishing a couple of papers describing her early magneto-optics research on the electronic structure of graphite, Millie was looking to delve even deeper, and Javan wanted to help. The two met during Millie’s work at Lincoln Lab; she was a huge fan, once calling him “a genius” and “an extremely creative and brilliant scientist.”

For her new work, Millie aimed to study the magnetic energy levels in graphite’s valence and conduction bands. To do this, she, Javan, and a graduate student, Paul Schroeder, employed a neon gas laser, which would provide a sharp point of light to probe their graphite samples. The laser had to be built especially for the experiment, and it took years for the fruits of their labor to mature; indeed, Millie moved from Lincoln to MIT in the middle of the work.

If the experiment had yielded only humdrum results, in line with everything the team had already known, it still would have been a path-breaking exercise because it was one of the first in which scientists used a laser to study the behavior of electrons in a magnetic field. But the results were not humdrum at all. Three years after Millie and her collaborators began their experiment, they discovered their data were telling them something that seemed impossible: the energy level spacing within graphite’s valence and conduction bands were totally off from what they expected. As Millie explained to a rapt audience at MIT two decades later, this meant that “the band structure that everybody had been using up till that point could certainly not be right, and had to be turned upside down.”

In other words, Millie and her colleagues were about to overturn a well-established scientific rule—one of the more exciting and important types of scientific discoveries one can make. Just like the landmark 1957 publication led by Chien-Shiung Wu, who overturned a long-accepted particle physics concept known as conservation of parity, upending established science requires a high degree of precision—and confidence in one’s results. Millie and her team had both.

What their data suggested was that the previously accepted placement of entities known as charge carriers within graphite’s electronic structure was actually backward. Charge carriers, which allow energy to flow through a conducting material such as graphite, are essentially just what their name suggests: something that can carry an electric charge. They are also critical for the functioning of electronic devices powered by a flow of energy.

Electrons are a well-known charge carrier; these subatomic bits carry a negative charge as they move around. Another type of charge carrier can be seen when an electron moves from one atom to another within a crystal lattice, creating something of an empty space that also carries a charge—one that’s equal in magnitude to the electron but opposite in charge. In what is essentially a lack of electrons, these positive charge carriers are known as holes.

MIT Press

FIGURE 6.1 In this simplified diagram, electrons (black dots) surround atomic nuclei in a crystal lattice. In some circumstances, electrons can break free from the lattice, leaving an empty spot or hole with a positive charge. Both electrons and holes can move about, affecting electrical conduction within the material.

Millie, Javan, and Schroeder discovered that scientists were using the wrong assignment of holes and electrons within the previously accepted structure of graphite: they found electrons where holes should be and vice versa. “This was pretty crazy,” Millie stated in a 2001 oral history interview. “We found that everything that had been done on the electronic structure of graphite up until that point was reversed.”

As with many other discoveries overturning conventional wisdom, acceptance of the revelation was not immediate. First, the journal to which Millie and her collaborators submitted their paper originally refused to publish it. In retelling the story, Millie often noted that one of the referees, her friend and colleague Joel McClure, privately revealed himself as a reviewer in hopes of convincing her that she was embarrassingly off-base. “He said,” Millie recalled in a 2001 interview, “‘Millie, you don’t want to publish this. We know where the electrons and holes are; how could you say that they’re backwards?’” But like all good scientists, Millie and her colleagues had checked and rechecked their results numerous times and were confident in their accuracy. And so, Millie thanked McClure and told him they were convinced they were right. “We wanted to publish, and we... would take the risk of ruining our careers,” Millie recounted in 1987.

Giving their colleagues the benefit of the doubt, McClure and the other peer reviewers approved publication of the paper despite conclusions that flew in the face of graphite’s established structure. Then a funny thing happened: bolstered by seeing these conclusions in print, other researchers emerged with previously collected data that made sense only in light of a reversed assignment of electrons and holes. “There was a whole flood of publications that supported our discovery that couldn’t be explained before,” Millie said in 2001.

Today, those who study the electronic structure of graphite do so with the understanding of charge carrier placement gleaned by Millie, Ali Javan, and Paul Schroeder (who ended up with quite a remarkable thesis based on the group’s results). For Millie, who published the work in her first year on the MIT faculty, the experiment quickly solidified her standing as an exceptional Institute researcher. While many of her most noteworthy contributions to science were yet to come, this early discovery was one she would remain proud of for the rest of her life.

A set of 47 Starlink internet satellites might soon be making its way low Earth orbit: SpaceX is targeting a March 3rd launch for the upcoming additions to its Starlink constellation. It's the third launch since the company lost 40 satellites in February to a geomagnetic storm, which caused atmospheric drag to increase and hinder the satellites' movement. As a result, the satellites deorbited and re-entered the atmosphere, where they burned up completely and left no debris.

SpaceX launched 46 satellites on February 21st and another 50 on February 25th since that event, so it's safe to say that it has already replaced the 40 it had lost. The company has launched over 2,000 Starlink satellites to date and currently has permission to send up to 10,000 more.

This particular set will blast off on top of a Falcon 9 rocket with a first stage booster that previously flew with GPS III-3, Turksat-5A, Transporter 2 and seven Starlink missions. The reusable booster, which has quite the flight history, will land on the Just Read the Instructions droneship in the Atlantic Ocean after separation — and will most likely fly on future missions if everything goes according to plan. 

Today's instantaneous launch window is at 9:35AM EST, and you can watch its live webcast starting at 9:15AM below. In case the conditions aren't quite right for a liftoff or if technical issues arise, SpaceX will attempt another launch tomorrow, March 4th, at 9:10AM EST.

Following Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine last week, the West has united over its condemnation of the aggression and has enacted broad economic sanctions against the nation. A financial fallout is already occurring with the ruble losing 20 percent of its value against the dollar nearly overnight, and which could fall even further as sanctions progressively excise Russia from the international monetary system. The pecuniary shockwaves created by these sanctions are likely to impact every strata of Russian society with far reaching consequences for the Roscosmos space program and the continued safe operation of the International Space Station.

These “strong sanctions,” US President Joe Biden stated at a press conference last Thursday, will impose “severe costs on the Russian economy” in an effort to “strike a blow to their ability to continue to modernize their military. It’ll degrade their aerospace industry, including their space program.”

Economic sanctions are an ancient form of interstate arm twisting and have been used extensively throughout the 20th century by nations in effort to elicit specific behaviors from their neighbors. What sets this round apart is its breadth, which targets some 600 billion dollars worth of Russian assets. Russia has been cut off from the SWIFT international payment system and its central banks’ assets have been frozen in the US, EU, and UK — as have those of Putin’s upper echelon. Airports and seaports across the West are now closed to Russian commercial travel while imports of Korean “strategic items” as well as American computers, semiconductors, lasers, navigation and avionics — all vital components to Russia’s space program — have been banned.

Russia has issued retaliatory sanctions against Western companies of its own. On Wednesday, Roscosmos announced that it will not launch the next round of 36 OneWeb internet satellites that was scheduled for liftoff March 4th from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Those satellites will not get into orbit, Roscosmos officials threatened until the UK-based company meet two demands: that the UK government sell its stake in OneWeb and that the company guarantee that its satellite constellation will not be used in a military capacity. OneWeb has yet to respond publicly to the demands.

"Russia’s actions are an immediate danger to those living in Ukraine, but also pose a real threat to democracy throughout the world," US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said in a statement Thursday. "By acting decisively and in close coordination with our allies and partners, we are sending a clear message today that the United States of America will not tolerate Russia's aggression against a democratically-elected government."

Despite the economic curb stomping the Russian people are about to endure on behalf of Putin’s cartographic quarrel, NASA remains optimistic that the sanctions will not adversely impact ongoing collaborative space programs, like the running of the ISS.

The ISS has, from its start, been a joint US-Russian effort. Originally born from a foreign policy plan to improve relations between the Cold War foes after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the conclusion of the Space Race, the International Space Station would not exist if not for Russia’s collaboration. Soyuz rockets helped bring ISS modules into orbit and, following the Space Shuttle’s retirement in 2011, served as the only means of getting astronauts into orbit and back, at least until SpaceX came along. Of the station’s 16 habitable modules, six were provided by Russia and eight by the US (with the rest sent up by Japan and the European Space Agency). Jus last summer , Russia successfully launched its largest ISS component to date, the 813-cubic meter Nauka science module.

Dmitry Rogozin, Director General of Roscosmos, himself still personally under sanctions due to the 2014 Crimea incident, voiced an alternative opinion in response to the news.

“Do you want to manage the ISS yourself,” he pointedly asked in a series of tweets Thursday. “Maybe President Biden is off topic, so explain to him that the correction of the station’s orbit, its avoidance of dangerous rendezvous with space garbage with which your talented businessmen have polluted the near-Earth orbit, is produced exclusively by the engines of the Russian Progress MS cargo ships.“

“If you block cooperation with us, who will save the ISS from an uncontrolled deorbit and fall into the United States or Europe,” Rogozin continued. “There is also the option of dropping a 500-ton structure to India and China. Do you want to threaten them with such a prospect? The ISS does not fly over Russia, so all the risks are yours. Are you ready for them?”

The “uncontrolled deorbit” remark appears to be a direct reference to Russia’s threat to not provide one of its Progress MS cargo ships to assist in the space station’s retirement at the end of the decade. On Saturday, Roscosmos dismissed all 87 Russians working at Europe’s Guiana Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana and suspended launches of the Soyuz-ST rocket from there in protest of the sanctions.

“I was not surprised, based on his previous behavior,” former space station commander Terry Virts told Time of Rogozin’s outburst. “This is what I’ve come to expect.”

Rogozin’s comments come more than seven weeks after NASA announced its intent to keep the ISS operational until 2030, though the American space agency and Roscosmos are still negotiating a new "crew exchange" deal, which would see astronauts and cosmonauts sent to the ISS aboard both American and Russian rockets. Russia’s obligations to the ISS officially expire in 2024 and, even prior to the invasion of the Ukraine, Russia was rumbling about pulling out of the project by 2025.

"The Russian segment can't function without the electricity on the American side, and the American side can't function without the propulsion systems that are on the Russian side," former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman noted to CNN. "So you can't do an amicable divorce. You can't do a conscious uncoupling."

As such, “NASA continues working with all our international partners, including the State Space Corporation Roscosmos, for the ongoing safe operations of the International Space Station,” the agency told Reuters following Rogozin’s rant. “The new export control measures will continue to allow US-Russia civil space cooperation. No changes are planned to the agency’s support for ongoing in orbit and ground station operations.”

However, Russia’s spacefaring future in the eyes of other ISS stakeholders is less clear. "I've been broadly in favor of continuing artistic and scientific collaboration," UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on the floor of the House of Commons Thursday. "But in the current circumstances, it's hard to see how even those can continue as normal."

More immediately, Roscosmos reported Monday that its public portal was under cyberassault. "A massive DDoS attack from various IP addresses has been carried out on the Roscosmos website for several days now. Its organizers may think that this affects something. I will answer: this only affects the timely awareness of space enthusiasts about Roscosmos news," Rogozin tweeted, while assuring that the safety of the ISS was not immediately at risk.

And since one cannot so much as utter the phrase “public crisis” without Elon Musk busting through a nearby wall like a mini-sub-slinging Kool-Aid man, SpaceX is of course getting shoehorned into this newfound global conflict.

On February 25th, Musk offered to have SpaceX step in and keep the ISS in orbit, should Russia refuse. The space station is currently where it is thanks to regular deliveries of propellant reactant by the Russian space agency but should those shipments stop, the ISS will be unable to counter the planet’s atmospheric drag and eventually slow into a capture orbit where it will fall to Earth. By taking over those delivery flights, SpaceX could keep the ISS aloft without the added hassle of outfitting a Falcon 9 to stand in for Russia’s undelivered deorbiting spacecraft. And even if SpaceX can’t do so, the engine attached to the uncrewed Cygnus supply ship that arrived on February 21st is powerful enough to give the ISS an orbital boost and temporary reprieve.

SpaceX is also bringing its Starlink satellite constellation into play over the contested region. On Saturday, Ukraine digital minister Mykhailo Fedorov took to Twitter requesting help from the satellite internet provider after a suspected cyberattack knocked the Viasat service offline. Less than 48 hours after Musk promised support, SpaceX delivered more than a dozen Starlink receiver dishes to the minister. “Starlink service is now active in Ukraine,” Musk tweeted in response. “More terminals en route.”

Starlink has launched more than 2,000 internet-beaming cubesats into orbit to date, a fraction of the more than 40,000 the company plans to eventually launch. CNBC reports that the company has more than 145,000 active subscribers as of January.

It would be imprudent at this point to predict how Russia’s invasion will pan out, whether the imposed economic sanctions will bring a quick resolution to the conflict or slowly strangle a fading world power. We can’t fully foresee the myriad implications emerging from these monetary decisions or how they’ll impact global collaboration and space exploration in coming years. But amidst this uncertainty and chaos we can take solace in knowing that life, aboard the ISS at least, continues unabated.

We most likely won't see the ExoMars mission blast off and start its journey to the Red Planet this year. The European Space Agency has announced that it's fully implementing sanctions imposed on Russia by its member states following the country's invasion of Ukraine, and it expects the move to affect its joint projects with Roscosmos. One of those joint projects is ExoMars, which is being developed to search for past life on the Red Planet, as well as to assess its water and atmospheric trace gases.

The ESA is working on the rover that will travel across the Martian surface, while the Russian space agency is in charge of its lander and some instruments the rover will use. In the ESA's announcement, it said "the sanctions and the wider context make a launch in 2022 very unlikely." The agency still has to analyze all its options before it can finalize a decision on how to proceed. 

ExoMars was supposed to launch in 2018 before it was rescheduled for 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic and multiple technical failures during testing prompted the space agencies to postpone it yet again. To be able to reach Mars from Earth, a spacecraft has to leave our planet within 10-day launch windows that only occur every two years when the two planets are properly lined up. If ExoMars is missing the this year's window, then it will definitely be delayed for another couple of years at the very least.

The ESA has also acknowledged that Roscosmos halting Soyuz launches and withdrawing its workforce from the vehicle's usual launchpad in Kazakhstan will affect some of its projects and payloads. In addition, as The New York Times notes, the war calls the fate of the ISS into question. At the moment, NASA and Roscosmos are working together to maintain the space station. But Roscosmos Director General Dmitry Rogozin recently said that US sanctions against his country could degrade its space program and destroy its partnership with NASA.

He said:

"If you block cooperation with us, who will save the International Space Station (ISS) from an uncontrolled deorbit and fall into the United States or...Europe? There is also the possibility of a 500-ton structure falling on India and China. Do you want to threaten them with such a prospect? The ISS does not fly over Russia, therefore all the risks are yours. Are you ready for them?"

While the US side of the ISS provides life support and power, the Russian side provides propulsion to maintain its altitude. NASA's human spaceflight program head Kathy Lueders said operations are going well thus far, but that Northrop Grumman and SpaceX have offered to help look for ways to add capability to the US side of the space laboratory.

A study by MIT scientists on a group of epilepsy patients discovered that a specific group of neurons in their brains respond only to singing — and not to instrumental music or any other type of sound. The findings of the study were published today in the science journal Current Biology. Scientists are still working to nail down the implications of the study for epilepsy patients, some of whom rely on music as a form of therapy to reduce seizures.

“The work provides evidence for relatively fine-grained segregation of function within the auditory cortex, in a way that aligns with an intuitive distinction within music,” says Sam Norman-Haignere, the lead author of the study and assistant professor of neuroscience at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

Given how small and specific the study's sample size is (fifteen people), there's not much we can conclude from this single study alone. But it will likely advance further studies on the link between neuroscience, epilepsy and music in the future.

The study’s participants were a group of fifteen epilepsy patients, all whom consented to have electrodes implanted in their skull. They were then asked to listen to hundreds of different sounds, both natural and synthesized. Scientists, assisted by fMRI, or functional magnetic resonance imaging, observed how neurons in the auditory cortex of participants reacted to each sound.

Back in 2015, the same researchers used fMRI imaging to identify what they believe are a group of neurons that respond only to music. 

The neurons only elicited mild reactions when hearing the sound of human voices, but fired up at the sound of instrumental or vocal music. In the new study, the researchers found that there was a special subset of neurons right next to the original group that specifically lights up when the brain hears human singing.

"There's one population of neurons that responds to singing, and then very nearby is another population of neurons that responds broadly to lots of music. At the scale of fMRI, they're so close that you can't disentangle them, but with intracranial recordings, we get additional resolution, and that's what we believe allowed us to pick them apart," says Norman-Haignere.

The research could also advance our understanding of the link between music and epilepsy. While certain kinds of music can reduce the number of seizures that epilepsy patients suffer from, some rare cases of epilepsy can also be provoked by music. One recent study published in Scientific Reports last year found that listening to 30 seconds of Mozart’s “Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major” helped drive down the neuron activity that causes seizures in epilepsy patients.

It took NASA and its partners nearly four dozen trips between 1998 and 2010 to haul the roughly 900,000 pounds worth of various modules into orbit that make up the $100 billion International Space Station. But come the end of this decade, more than 30 years after the first ISS component broke atmosphere, the ISS will reach the end of its venerable service life and be decommissioned in favor of a new, privately-operated cadre of orbital research stations.

NASA

The problem NASA faces is what to do with the ISS once it’s been officially shuttered, because it’s not like we can just leave it where it is. Without regular shipments of propellant reactant to keep the station on course, the ISS’ orbit would eventually degrade to the point where it’s forward momentum would be insufficient to overcome the effects of atmospheric drag, subsequently plummeting back to Earth. So, rather than wait for the ISS to de-orbit on its own, or leave it in place for the Russians to use as target practice, NASA will instead cast down the station from upon high like Vader did Palpatine.

NASA is no stranger to getting rid of refuse via atmospheric incineration. The space agency has long relied on it in order to dispose of trash, expended launch vehicles, and derelict satellites. Both America’s Skylab and Russia’s Mir space stations were decommissioned in this manner.

Skylab was America’s first space station, for the whole 24 weeks it was in use. When the final 3-astronaut crew departed in early 1974, the station was boosted one last time to 6.8 miles further out in a 289-mile graveyard orbit. It was expected to remain there until the 1980s when increased solar activity from the waxing 11-year solar cycle would eventually drag it down into a fiery reentry. However, astronomers miscalculated the relative strength of that solar event, which pushed up Skylab’s demise to 1979.

In 1978, NASA toyed with the idea of using its soon-to-be-completed Space Shuttle to help boost Skylab into a higher orbit but abandoned the plan when it became clear that the Shuttle wouldn’t be finished in time, given the accelerated reentry timetable. The agency also rejected a proposal to blow the station up with missiles while still in orbit. The station eventually came down on July 11th, 1979, though it didn’t burn up in the atmosphere as quickly as NASA had predicted. This caused some rather large pieces of debris to overshoot the intended Indian Ocean target South-Southeast of South Africa and instead land in Perth, Australia. Despite NASA’s calculations of a 1 in 152 chance that a piece of the lab could hit someone during its de-orbit, no injuries were reported.

Mir's deorbit went much more smoothly. After 15 years of service it was brought down on March 23rd, 2001, in three stages. First, its orbit was allowed to degrade to an altitude of 140 miles. Then, the Progress M1-5 spacecraft — basically an attachable rocket designed specifically to help deorbit the station — docked with the Mir. It subsequently lit its engine for a little over 22 minutes to precisely put the Mir down over a distant expanse of the Pacific Ocean, east of Fiji.

As for the ISS’ oncoming demise, NASA has a plan — or at least a pretty good idea — for what’s going to happen. "We've done a lot of studies," Kirk Shireman, deputy manager of NASA's space station program, told Space.com in 2011. "We have found an orbit and a change in velocity that we believe is achievable, and it creates a debris footprint that’s all in water in an unpopulated area."

According to NASA standards — specifically NASA-STD-8719.14A, Process for Limiting Orbital Debris — the risk of human casualty on the ground is limited to less than 1 in 10,000 (< 0.0001). However, a 1998 study conducted by the ISS Mission Integration Office discovered that an uncontrolled reentry would carry an unacceptable casualty probability of between .024 to .077 (2 in 100 to 8 in 100). A number of controllable decommissioning alternatives have been discussed over the decades, including boosting the ISS farther into orbit in the event of an unexpected evacuation of the station’s crew.

"We've been working on plans and update the plans periodically," Shireman continued. "We don’t want to ever be in a position where we couldn’t safely deorbit the station. It's been a part of the program from the very beginning."

Beginning about a year before the planned decommissioning date, NASA will allow the ISS to begin degrading from its normal 240-mile high orbit and send up an uncrewed space vehicle (USV) to dock with the station and help propel it back Earthward. The ultimate crew from the ISS will evacuate just before the station hits an altitude of 115 miles, at which point the attached USV will fire its rockets in a series of deorbital burns to set the station into a capture trajectory over the Pacific Ocean.

NASA has not yet settled on which USV will be employed. A 2019 plan approved by NASA’s safety council, ASAP, relied on Roscosmos to outfit and send up another Progress spacecraft to do what it did for the Mir. However, that vehicle might not actually be available when the ISS is set to come down because Russia’s commitment to the ISS program terminates in 2024. In April of last year, Russian state media began making noise that the country would abandon the station entirely by 2025, potentially stripping parts from this station to reuse in its upcoming national station and leaving the ISS without a reliable way to break orbit. The ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle or NASA's Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, though still in development, are both potential alternatives to the Progress.

“NASA is continuing to work with its international partners to ensure a safe deorbit plan of the station and is considering a number of options," spokeswoman Leah Cheshier told UPI via email in 2021, declining to elaborate on what those options might entail but adding that any deorbiting mission would be "shared by the ISS partnership and is negotiation-sensitive at this time."

The fall of the ISS is sure to be a spectacle on par with the international hubbub surrounding Skylab’s demise, but is still nearly a decade away and there is plenty of science still left to do. According to the January 2022 International Space Station Transition report:

The ISS is now entering its third and most productive decade of utilization, including research advancement, commercial value, and global partnership. The first decade of ISS was dedicated to assembly, and the second was devoted to research and technology development and learning how to conduct these activities most effectively in space. The third decade is one in which NASA aims to verify exploration and human research technologies to support deep space exploration, continue to return medical and environmental benefits to humanity, continue to demonstrate U.S. leadership in LEO through international partnerships, and lay the groundwork for a commercial future in LEO.

More than half of the experiments performed aboard the ISS nowadays are for non-NASA users, according to the report — including nearly two dozen commercial facilities — “hundreds of experiments from other government agencies, academia, and commercial users to return benefits to people and industry on the ground.” This influx of orbital commercial activity is expected — and being actively encouraged — to further increase over the next few years until humanity can collectively realize Jeff Bezos’ dream of building a low Earth orbit mixed-use business park.

Scientists from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the University of Calgary have developed a modular robot system that can morph into different shapes. ElectroVoxels don't have any motors or moving parts. Instead, they use electromagnets to shift around each other.

Each edge of an ElectroVoxel cube is an electromagnetic ferrite core wrapped with copper wire. The length of each ElectroVoxel side is around 60 millimeters. The total cost is just 60 cents.

When the polarity of a magnet is changed, the edges either attract or repel each other. That causes the cubes to shift into a different orientation. Printed circuit boards and electronics inside each cube control the direction of each electromagnet's current.

The robots have two basic types of movement. They can pivot around the edge of another cube, or traverse from one ElectroVoxel to the next. A software planner can be used to program reconfigurations. A user can highlight specific magnets, control the speed of cube's movements and ensure they won't collide with each other.

The researchers say possible to control up to 1,000 ElectroVoxels with the software. Users can tell the blocks to shift into different shapes, such as turning from a chair into a couch. They can decide which cube should move in which direction, and the software will determine the electromagnetic assignments needed to carry out the task.

The scientists tested ElectroVoxels in microgravity on a parabolic flight. They found the robots can operate in low-gravity environments. As such, the researchers say ElectroVoxels could be used to alter and create structures in outer space.

MIT CSAIL

They suggest the robots could change the inertia properties of a spacecraft, which might mitigate the need for extra fuel for reconfiguration. That, the scientists say, remedies many challenges linked with launch mass and volume. They hope the system will eventually enable a range of space-related use cases, such as augmenting and replacing structures over a series of launches, and building temporary structures to assist astronauts and help with spacecraft inspections.

A future version of ElectroVoxels could allow the creation of self-sorting storage containers. However, to allow the robots to more easily reconfigure in Earth's gravity, the researchers say more detailed modeling and optimization would be required.

"While the potential benefits in space are particularly great, the paradox is that the favorable dynamics provided by microgravity mean some of those problems are actually also easier to solve — in space, even tiny forces can make big things move," said Martin Nisser, a PhD student at CSAIL and lead author on a paper on ElectroVoxels. "By applying this technology to solve real near-term problems in space, we can hopefully incubate the technology for future use on Earth too."

Don't expect China to readily accept blame for the rocket debris expected to collide with the Moon on March 4th. SpaceNews and The Verge report Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin denied that the debris came from the 2014 Chang'e-5 T1 Moon mission. The upper stage of that rocket burned up "completely" in Earth's atmosphere, Wang said. He maintained that China's aerospace efforts were always in line with international laws, and that the country was determined to protect the "long-term sustainability" of outer space.

It's not clear China has the right rocket in mind, however. Astronomer Bill Gray, who pinned the expected collision on the Chang'e-5 T1 mission (after initially blaming SpaceX), believes Wang may have confused that with the 2020 Chang'e 5 mission. A US Space Force squadron claimed the T1 upper stage burned up in October 2015, but Gray noted that the squadron offered only one trajectory update for that rocket. The burn-up may have been assumed, not confirmed. NASA's JPL also believes the T1 booster is involved.

Whoever's responsible, the predicted crash will represent an unwanted milestone in spaceflight — a Moon crash from a spacecraft that wasn't meant to be there. The dispute over the debris' origins also reflects the difficulty of tracking space debris. While there are more advanced sensors for spotting debris in Earth orbit, deep space monitoring simply hasn't been a priority. The impending collision might change that focus, particularly with Moon missions like NASA's Artemis program on the horizon.