International Space Station Crew Rotation: How NASA Handles Emergency Evacuations and Full Crew Operations [2025]

Something unexpected happened in early January at the International Space Station. One of four astronauts living 250 miles above Earth experienced a health emergency. Within days, NASA made a decision that hadn't happened before in the modern spaceflight era: bring the entire crew home ahead of schedule.

Then came the scramble. SpaceX and NASA teams worked around the clock to accelerate the Crew-12 launch. They had to minimize the time a single astronaut would be responsible for maintaining massive sections of the orbiting laboratory. By February, reinforcements arrived. A fresh crew of four docked with the station, restoring it to full operational capacity.

This wasn't just logistics. It was a masterclass in flexibility, preparation, and what NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman called "what it means to be mission focused." The agency pulled off something remarkable: bringing home an entire crew early, launching their replacements early, and simultaneously preparing for the Artemis II mission.

For anyone tracking human spaceflight, this moment reveals critical truths about how modern space operations actually work. It shows why NASA has slowly shifted from government-owned spacecraft to commercial partners like SpaceX. It demonstrates the delicate balance of crew safety, operational continuity, and international cooperation that makes the ISS possible. And it raises real questions about what happens when medical emergencies strike in space.

Let's break down exactly what happened, why it matters, and what it tells us about the future of orbital operations.

The Medical Emergency That Changed Everything

In early January 2026, roughly a week into the new year, something went wrong. A Crew-11 astronaut experienced a health emergency. NASA never publicly identified the astronaut, citing privacy concerns. The space agency also declined to disclose specific details about the nature of the medical condition.

What we know is this: it was serious enough that NASA's medical team determined the astronaut needed to return to Earth immediately. Not in a few weeks. Not at the planned departure time. Now.

This decision wasn't made casually. NASA has deep experience managing astronaut health in space. The agency employs flight surgeons who monitor crew members continuously. Telemedicine technology allows ground-based physicians to conduct real-time assessments. But sometimes the diagnosis is clear: this person needs to be on Earth, receiving medical care from specialists in hospitals.

The decision to evacuate an entire crew less than two weeks into their mission was unprecedented in the commercial spaceflight era. It had happened before with Soyuz spacecraft—historically, Russian crews have returned early due to medical issues. But NASA and SpaceX had never faced this situation with a Crew Dragon mission.

Once the decision was made, the timeline compressed dramatically. Crew-11 members began final preparations. They gathered their personal items, performed handover procedures with the remaining crew, and sealed the hatches of their Crew Dragon spacecraft. On January 15, they undocked from the station and executed a series of burns that would bring them back to Earth.

The return itself was smooth. Crew Dragon's heat shield did its job, protecting the astronauts during the intense friction of atmospheric reentry. The capsule splashed down safely in the Atlantic Ocean, where recovery teams were waiting.

But when the hatches opened on the spacecraft, the space station above was fundamentally changed. Only one NASA astronaut remained in orbit: Chris Williams.

Estimated data shows that a single astronaut spends the majority of their time on maintenance and monitoring, with little time left for experiments or construction preparation. In contrast, a team of four can distribute tasks more evenly.

The Single-Astronaut Dilemma

Chris Williams is an experienced astronaut. He arrived at the space station in November aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft, alongside cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov and Sergei Mikaev. His mission was supposed to last six months, rotating off in May when his replacement arrived.

But now, in mid-January, he was alone managing the US Orbital Segment.

Here's what that means in practical terms. The International Space Station isn't a single facility. It's a collection of modules and systems maintained by different space agencies. NASA manages the US section, which includes critical infrastructure: power systems, life support equipment, computer networks, thermal control systems, water recycling, and dozens of science experiments.

With three NASA astronauts gone, Williams had to handle all of that himself.

Normally, four NASA astronauts share these responsibilities. They have a formal training program where they learn every subsystem, every procedure, every contingency plan. But one person? That's overload. Williams spent most of his time on maintenance and monitoring. He couldn't conduct meaningful experiments. He couldn't prepare for future construction projects. He was essentially a caretaker, managing the station rather than advancing it.

NASA knew this situation was unsustainable. The US segment of the station is too large, too complex, too critical for a single operator. Things break. Equipment fails. Procedures take longer than expected. Williams would have been stretched thin for a full month or more if NASA didn't act.

So the agency faced a choice: wait for the planned Crew-12 launch in late February or accelerate it significantly. Both options had risks. Accelerating a launch means compressing the timeline for final tests, reviews, and preparations. But waiting meant leaving Williams alone to manage an increasingly deteriorating situation.

NASA chose acceleration.

The arrival of Crew-12 significantly redistributed the workload, reducing maintenance hours per person and allowing time for other critical tasks like experiments and planning. Estimated data based on operational needs.

How NASA Accelerated Crew-12

SpaceX and NASA teams had already been working on Crew-12 for months. The four crew members—NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, European Space Agency astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev—had completed most of their training. Hardware was assembled. Procedures were documented.

But speeding up the launch still required incredible effort. Every extra day of preparation normally scheduled was suddenly squeezed. Testing had to be compressed. Review cycles that normally took weeks were completed in days. Teams that normally worked in shifts had to maintain 24-hour operations.

The risk here is real. Commercial spaceflight is sometimes portrayed as "move fast and break things," but that's fundamentally wrong. SpaceX has a rigorous safety culture. Every launch receives extensive review. Nobody wants a launch failure—it kills the crew, damages the program, and sets back human spaceflight for years.

But NASA and SpaceX also understand proportional risk. A slightly compressed launch schedule is acceptable if the alternative is leaving your station understaffed. The medical necessity of the Crew-11 evacuation created a legitimate operational reason to accelerate.

On February 14, the Crew Dragon spacecraft lifted off from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch was picture-perfect. For the next 24 hours, the vehicle pursued the International Space Station, executing a series of maneuvers that would bring it into position for docking.

On February 15, at 5:14 PM Eastern Time, the hatches opened. Jessica Meir floated into the station first, followed by Jack Hathaway, Sophie Adenot, and Andrey Fedyaev. Suddenly, there were seven people in orbit again.

The relief on the ground was palpable. Williams now had three additional NASA-trained astronauts to help manage the US segment. The workload dropped from critical to manageable. The station could resume normal operations.

Understanding the "US Orbital Segment"

You might be wondering why NASA cares so much about having at least four US-trained astronauts in orbit. The answer lies in the organizational structure of the International Space Station itself.

The ISS isn't a single country's facility. It's an unprecedented partnership between multiple nations. NASA (United States), ESA (European Space Agency), Roscosmos (Russia), JAXA (Japan), and CSA (Canada) all contributed modules, equipment, and personnel.

Each agency maintains responsibility for their own hardware. Russia operates the Russian segment. Europe operates European modules. Japan operates the Kibo module. NASA, along with Canadian and European astronauts, operates the US segment.

But here's the complexity: the US segment is massive. It includes the main truss structure, solar arrays, radiators, the Harmony module, the Destiny laboratory, and numerous external payloads. It's the largest single section of the station.

NASA established a minimum crewing requirement: at least four "USOS" astronauts in orbit at all times. USOS stands for "US Orbital Segment." These aren't just NASA astronauts—they include astronauts from Canada, Japan, and the European Space Agency who are trained in US systems.

Why four? Because that's the number NASA determined was necessary to safely maintain the complex infrastructure while also conducting experiments and advancing science.

With Crew Dragon becoming operational in late 2020, NASA has maintained this four-person minimum consistently. Crews overlap by several days when rotations happen. One crew departs, the new crew has already been aboard for at least a day, ensuring knowledge transfer and continuity. This system has worked well—until it didn't.

The Crew-11 evacuation broke this pattern. It wasn't a normal rotation—it was an emergency departure. And it left NASA with an unprecedented problem: a single astronaut responsible for a complex multi-national facility.

Astronauts spend 20% of their time on research and science, while 80% is dedicated to maintenance and operations, highlighting the demanding nature of space missions.

The Crew-12 Mission Members

Jessica Meir is no stranger to space. She previously spent eight days on the ISS as a mission specialist on a Space Shuttle flight. This mission marks her return to the station for a longer duration stay. She brings extensive training in life support systems and external robotics.

Jack Hathaway is flying to space for the first time. He's an experienced test pilot with a background in atmospheric flight test. His addition to the crew brings fresh perspectives and thoroughly trained backup capabilities for critical operations.

Sophie Adenot represents the European Space Agency and brings fluency in multiple languages, which enhances communication with Russian cosmonauts during joint operations. She's a former combat helicopter pilot with experience managing complex systems under pressure.

Andrey Fedyaev is a Roscosmos cosmonaut representing the Russian space program. His expertise in Soyuz spacecraft and Russian segment operations provides essential knowledge transfer for the ongoing partnership between Russia and the rest of the ISS partners.

Together, these four bring a combined total of decades of spaceflight experience, training, and expertise. The overlap of their skills—robotics, systems operations, emergency procedures, scientific research—ensures the station can function at full capacity.

Why NASA Wanted Crew-12 To Launch Early

From a pure operational standpoint, accelerating Crew-12 was the right call. Here's the math: Chris Williams alone managing the US segment would require roughly 40-50 hours per week of basic maintenance and monitoring. That's essentially full-time, with no capacity for other tasks.

With the Crew-12 arrivals, Williams now has backup. The four new crew members can rotate maintenance responsibilities. Each person spends maybe 10-15 hours per week on US segment operations, allowing the other 30-35 hours for experiments, equipment upgrades, and planning.

From a mission perspective, an understaffed station is a struggling station. Research slows. Maintenance gets deferred. Equipment issues don't get fixed. The entire science program suffers.

From a safety perspective, an overworked astronaut is an at-risk astronaut. Fatigue leads to mistakes. Mistakes in space can be catastrophic. The ISS relies on human judgment and response in ways that ground-based systems don't. You need alert, well-rested crew members.

From a public perception perspective, demonstrating that NASA can respond to crises with flexibility builds confidence in the program. The agency showed it could adapt. It could make hard decisions. It could work with commercial partners effectively.

And from a political perspective, maintaining the ISS at full capability is important. International partnerships require demonstrating commitment. Russia remains a partner, even amid geopolitical tensions. Japan and Europe are long-term participants. Canada is integral to operations. Showing that the station continues running smoothly, even when crises hit, demonstrates that the partnership is robust.

Estimated data shows NASA and Roscosmos as primary contributors to the ISS, highlighting the critical nature of their partnership despite geopolitical tensions.

The Unprecedented Nature of Crew-11's Early Return

Here's something worth emphasizing: what happened with Crew-11 doesn't have a direct precedent in the modern era of human spaceflight.

Russian Soyuz missions have been evacuated for medical reasons before. In 1989, a Soviet cosmonaut developed a medical condition that led to an early return. But that was a different era. The Mir space station was smaller. Crew rotations worked differently.

With Crew Dragon, this was genuinely new. NASA had never had to execute an emergency evacuation of an entire crew. The agency had procedures and plans, but executing them for real is different than running drills.

What made it possible was the maturity of Crew Dragon technology. The spacecraft is regularly maintained and ready to fly. NASA and SpaceX have demonstrated the ability to launch multiple missions in quick succession. The infrastructure exists to handle turnarounds measured in weeks rather than months.

Compare this to the Space Shuttle era. If a Space Shuttle Expedition crew needed emergency evacuation in the 1990s, it would have been a months-long effort to get replacement crews to orbit. The spacecraft required extensive refurbishment between flights. Infrastructure constraints were real.

Crew Dragon changed that equation. The spacecraft is designed for fast turnaround. With proper funding and planning, NASA and SpaceX can launch crew within weeks of notice.

This capability is precisely why commercial crew programs matter. They're not just cheaper—they're more flexible, more responsive, and more capable of handling surprises.

Managing Crew Overlap and Knowledge Transfer

When Crew-12 arrived, they didn't immediately assume control of the station. Instead, there was a planned overlap period. The new crew members trained with Williams and the Russian cosmonauts. They learned the current status of every system. They received briefings on ongoing experiments. They were brought fully into the operational rhythm before Crew-11's departure.

This overlap period is critical. It's not just ceremonial. Astronauts who are leaving after six months have accumulated knowledge about what works, what's been problematic, and what needs attention. That knowledge has to transfer to the incoming crew.

Usually, Crew-11 would have stayed for several days after Crew-12's arrival. They'd have done joint operations. They'd have conducted formal handovers. Then they'd depart, leaving the new crew in charge.

But with the medical emergency, that timeline compressed. When they departed on January 15, Crew-12 hadn't even launched yet. Crew-12 didn't arrive until February 15. That's a full month where Williams had to maintain systems without the incoming crew present.

Again, this is why having a single person managing the US segment was unsustainable. You can do it for a week. Maybe you can do it for two weeks. But a full month? That's asking too much.

Estimated importance ratings of USOS components highlight the critical role of the Destiny laboratory and solar arrays in maintaining ISS operations.

The Artemis II Connection

Remember what NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said? "In the last couple of weeks we brought Crew 11 home early, we pulled forward Crew 12, all while simultaneously making launch preparations for the Artemis II mission."

That's important context. While all this ISS drama was happening, NASA was also preparing for Artemis II—the next test flight of the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft that will eventually return humans to the Moon.

Artemis II had been facing delays. Various technical issues needed resolution. Testing schedules had slipped. NASA needed to conduct a crucial test of Orion's systems before the final crew launch.

Meanwhile, the ISS emergency demanded attention. Crew-11's evacuation. Crew-12's acceleration. All the engineering effort, management bandwidth, and technical expertise that goes into supporting these operations.

NASA managed both. They brought home an emergency crew. They launched their replacements early. And they prepared for the next chapter of lunar exploration. Simultaneously.

This is the kind of thing that looks easy from outside and is apparently impossible from inside—until you do it and realize that NASA's workforce is just that good.

Isaacman's comment about "incredibly talented workforce" wasn't just ceremony. It was genuine acknowledgment of what happens when thousands of people who understand spaceflight work together with perfect clarity about what matters.

The Commercial Crew Program's Role

None of this would have been possible without the Commercial Crew Program. That initiative, starting around 2010, provided funds and contracts to companies like SpaceX to develop crewed spacecraft. Many people criticized it at the time. "Why privatize human spaceflight?" "Isn't government better suited to this?" "Will commercial companies prioritize safety?"

The answers, years later, are clear. Commercial crew has proven to be more flexible, faster to adapt, and in many ways safer than traditional government-operated systems.

SpaceX's Crew Dragon can launch and land routinely. The company maintains multiple spacecraft in operational status. Ground infrastructure supports rapid turnarounds. This infrastructure didn't exist during the Space Shuttle era.

When Crew-11 needed emergency evacuation, NASA didn't have to wait months for the next government spacecraft to be ready. Instead, Crew Dragon—built and operated by a commercial company—was available to respond.

And when Crew-12 needed to launch ahead of schedule, SpaceX's proven track record meant the acceleration could happen with manageable risk.

Commercial crew isn't a replacement for government leadership and oversight. NASA still makes all the critical decisions. NASA astronauts still command the flights. NASA determines the schedule. But SpaceX provides the technological capability that makes responsiveness possible.

This model—government providing direction and oversight, commercial companies providing operations and innovation—is becoming the standard for human spaceflight. It's working at the ISS. It will likely work for lunar missions under Artemis. And it will probably extend to future space stations.

International Partnership Under Pressure

Here's something most people don't appreciate: the ISS is an extraordinary example of international cooperation. It exists in orbit, operated jointly by space agencies from multiple nations, some of which have profound political disagreements on Earth.

The Crew-11 evacuation and Crew-12 acceleration happened during a time of significant geopolitical tension. Russia remains a critical partner on the ISS, even as the broader relationship between Russia and NATO countries is strained.

This creates tension. How do you maintain a joint space program when your political relationships are complicated?

The answer is that you compartmentalize. You separate the technical partnership from politics. You maintain the systems that work. You continue flying together in space.

When Crew-11 was evacuated, the Russian cosmonauts aboard the station were part of the rescue effort. When Crew-12 launched, it included a Roscosmos cosmonaut. This kind of continued cooperation isn't accidental—it's deliberate policy.

Both Russia and the United States have reasons to maintain ISS cooperation. For Russia, the station provides scientific opportunity, international prestige, and participation in the future of human space exploration. For the United States, it prevents Russia from developing alternative capabilities, maintains communication channels, and advances fundamental science.

A medical emergency that leads to one country evacuating an astronaut but continuing cooperation with another country—that's the ISS working as designed. It's messy. It's complicated. It requires constant diplomatic effort. But it works.

The Crew-12 Science Agenda

With the station now at full crew complement, research can accelerate. Crew-12 brings specific expertise and training for particular experiments. The four crew members will spend time on:

Biology and life sciences research focused on understanding how microgravity affects human physiology, materials science experiments investigating how different substances behave without gravity, Earth observation work capturing data about our planet's surface and atmosphere, and technology demonstrations testing equipment for future missions.

Each of these research areas has both immediate scientific value and long-term importance for human spaceflight. Understanding how humans adapt to microgravity is essential for Moon and Mars missions. Materials science in space reveals properties that can't be obtained on Earth. Earth observation from the ISS provides unique perspectives on climate, weather, and land use. Technology demonstrations reduce risk for future exploration.

With a full crew, these research programs can proceed at pace. Williams alone couldn't have done all this. With additional crew members, the workload becomes manageable. And the research advances.

Lessons for Future Space Operations

The Crew-11 evacuation and Crew-12 acceleration teach important lessons about how space operations will work in the future.

First, flexibility matters. Space agencies and commercial operators need the capability to respond to unexpected events. Systems designed for nominal operations often struggle when real emergencies occur. NASA had this capability because it had planned for contingencies and had responsive commercial partners.

Second, crew training and backup capability are essential. The four Crew-12 members arrived with extensive training. They could step into operations immediately. They could take over responsibilities from Williams. They could manage the station without a ramp-up period. That's what happens when you invest in training and selection.

Third, international cooperation requires commitment during difficult times. The ISS persists and functions because Russia, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada all choose to participate. When a crew member needs evacuation, the entire partnership responds together. That kind of cooperation doesn't happen by accident.

Fourth, commercial capability enables government objectives. NASA achieved something remarkable because SpaceX had built a reliable spacecraft with rapid turnaround capability. Future government missions will likely depend increasingly on commercial enablers.

Fifth, planning and procedure matter. NASA's teams had practiced emergency scenarios. When reality demanded improvisation, they could execute because they'd thought through the procedures. SpaceX had experience launching crews quickly. These capabilities didn't exist from scratch—they'd been built over years of operations.

Finally, good people make the difference. Isaacman said it clearly: "It's only possible because of the incredibly talented workforce we have." That's not flattery. It's recognition that executing complex operations in space requires exceptional human capability. Training, experience, dedication, and clear thinking drive success.

The Future of ISS Crew Rotations

What does this event mean for future crew rotations? Probably that NASA and SpaceX will continue improving their response capabilities. The successful acceleration of Crew-12 proves it can be done. Over time, launch schedule flexibility will likely increase.

We might see changes to crew overlap periods. If emergency evacuations can happen, perhaps ISS partners will adjust their transition procedures. Or maybe they'll maintain the current approach because it works well.

We'll likely see continued emphasis on commercial crew. NASA is now contracting with both SpaceX and Boeing (once its Starliner vehicle achieves reliable operations) for crew transport. Having multiple providers means more schedule options, more redundancy, and more response capability.

Soyuz rotation patterns will probably continue, with Russian cosmonauts arriving on Soyuz spacecraft while NASA crew use Crew Dragon. This mix of providers creates redundancy—if one system has issues, the other can cover operations.

Longer term, as the ISS ages and eventually reaches end-of-life (probably in the 2030s), the station may transition to a smaller crew or be replaced by new orbital facilities. But for now, the seven-person crew and the operational model that supports it will likely persist.

Reflections on Crisis Management in Space

When you strip away the technical details, the Crew-11 evacuation and Crew-12 acceleration represent something fundamental: how humans respond to crises with limited information and high stakes.

Someone got sick. A decision was made that they needed to come home. That decision cascaded through the entire system. Crew rotations accelerated. Schedules compressed. Teams worked faster than they normally would. Risk was accepted because the alternative—leaving a single person responsible for critical infrastructure—was worse.

This is what crisis management looks like in spaceflight. It's not panicked. It's not reckless. It's methodical, carefully considered decision-making under pressure. It's people saying, "This situation is serious, here's what we need to do, and here's how we do it safely."

It's why human spaceflight, for all its risks and costs, remains an endeavor worth pursuing. It demands excellence. It forces us to think clearly about what matters. It requires cooperation across national boundaries and organizational structures.

And when something goes wrong, we see what humans are capable of when we put our best people on the problem.

FAQ

What is the US Orbital Segment of the ISS?

The US Orbital Segment (USOS) is the section of the International Space Station maintained by NASA in cooperation with Canadian, European, and Japanese space agencies. It includes the Destiny laboratory module, Harmony node, Unity module, truss structure, solar arrays, and numerous external payloads. NASA requires at least four trained crew members in orbit at all times to safely operate and maintain these systems.

Why did NASA evacuate the entire Crew-11 mission early?

One of the four Crew-11 astronauts experienced a medical emergency approximately one week into their mission that required immediate return to Earth for specialized medical care. NASA's flight surgeons determined that the condition was serious enough to necessitate emergency evacuation rather than waiting for the planned departure date.

How did NASA manage the ISS with only one crew member?

After Crew-11's evacuation on January 15, Chris Williams remained aboard managing the US segment alone. He focused primarily on critical maintenance and system monitoring, unable to conduct research or advanced operations. This situation was unsustainable, prompting NASA and SpaceX to accelerate the Crew-12 launch to minimize the understaffed period.

What makes the Crew-12 mission different from typical crew rotations?

Crew-12 was launched ahead of its planned schedule specifically to respond to the Crew-11 emergency and restore the ISS to full operational capacity. This acceleration required SpaceX and NASA teams to compress timelines for final testing, reviews, and preparations while maintaining safety standards.

How does the Commercial Crew Program enable rapid crew rotations?

SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft can be launched and recovered routinely, with multiple vehicles maintained in operational status. This creates the scheduling flexibility that allows NASA to accelerate launches when necessary, unlike historical Space Shuttle operations which required extensive refurbishment between missions.

Who are the four astronauts on Crew-12?

Crew-12 consists of NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, European Space Agency astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev. Together they bring decades of spaceflight experience and specialized training in life support, robotics, emergency procedures, and international operations.

Why does NASA need at least four crew members for the US segment?

The US segment is the largest section of the ISS with complex infrastructure including power systems, life support, thermal control, water recycling, computer networks, and numerous experiments. Four trained crew members are required to conduct the necessary maintenance, monitoring, and research operations while maintaining safety margins and preventing crew fatigue.

What was happening with Artemis II while this ISS crisis occurred?

While managing the Crew-11 evacuation and Crew-12 acceleration, NASA was simultaneously preparing for the Artemis II launch—the next test flight of the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft. Managing all three major programs concurrently demonstrated NASA's organizational capability and workforce expertise.

How does the ISS partnership continue amid geopolitical tensions?

The International Space Station partnership compartmentalizes political relationships from technical cooperation. While geopolitical tensions exist between nations, space agencies maintain their ISS commitments because both Russia and Western nations benefit from the partnership, and it provides valuable communication channels during difficult times.

What happens when a medical emergency occurs in space?

Astronauts in space have access to telemedicine technology allowing real-time assessment by ground-based flight surgeons. NASA's flight surgeons can conduct examinations remotely using equipment aboard the station. If the condition is serious, the astronaut returns immediately using the emergency evacuation capability of their spacecraft, as happened with Crew-11.

Key Takeaways

• A Crew-11 medical emergency forced unprecedented early evacuation and left only one NASA astronaut managing the entire US segment of the ISS
• NASA and SpaceX accelerated Crew-12 launch by several weeks to prevent critical understaffing that would have halted research and compromised station safety
• Commercial crew capability enables the rapid response flexibility that was impossible during the Space Shuttle era, proving the value of SpaceX partnerships
• The ISS requires minimum four-person crew to safely maintain complex aging infrastructure while conducting research—a threshold NASA successfully maintained
• International cooperation persists during geopolitical tensions because all partners benefit from ISS participation and the station demonstrates what humans can achieve together

Related Articles

• NASA SpaceX Crew-12 ISS Docking: Complete Mission Guide [2025]
• NASA Astronauts Can Now Take Smartphones to Space [2025]
• NASA Spacewalk Postponement: What Happened and Why [2025]
• Elon Musk's Moon Satellite Catapult: The Lunar Factory Plan [2025]
• NASA Crew-12 Mission to ISS: Everything About February 11 Launch [2025]
• SpaceX Acquires xAI: The 1 Million Satellite Gambit for AI Compute [2025]