One might think that acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy’s job is now in question given a recent report from ProPublica that found three Trump administration officials have mortgage issues similar to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. One of those officials is Sean Duffy.
…at least three of Trump’s Cabinet members call multiple homes their primary residences on mortgages. We discovered the loans while examining financial disclosure forms, county real estate records and publicly available mortgage data provided by Hunterbrook Media…Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer entered into two primary-residence mortgages in quick succession, including for a second home near a country club in Arizona, where she’s known to vacation. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has primary-residence mortgages in New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has one primary-residence mortgage in Long Island and another in Washington, D.C., according to loan records.
Notice I said “one might think,” but this is not the time for thinking individuals and the expectation that the law applies to everyone. The likelihood of Mr. Duffy being dumped for mortgage problems is pretty low. We know that the real threat to his job would be any indication that he donated to a democrat in the past (which President Trump did many times) or said anything even mildly even-handed about American politics.
NASA does not need any more disruptions, and the same could be said for the nation as well. Yet I think the political atmosphere ahead is more likely to mimic Space Mountain rather than It’s a Small World After All.
Image (Credit): Artist’s rendering of the Artemis Gateway. (NASA)
The hearing earlier this week held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation contained some clear warnings about the future of the US space program. In addition to comments by the Chairman and Ranking Member, we heard plenty from the witnesses about the importance of Artemis program in terms of political and economic outcomes, concerns about how the program is currently structured, and frustration with the continuing uncertainty about long term funding.
For instance, James Bridenstine, a Former Administrator for NASA, stated these concerns about NASA’s ability to land on the Moon under the Artemis program:
While the United States should celebrate orbiting the Moon in 2026, the United States does not have a lander. Unless something changes, it is highly unlikely the United States will beat China’s projected timeline to the Moon’s surface. Our complicated architecture requires a dozen or more launches in a short time frame, relies on very challenging technologies that have yet to be developed like cryogenic in-space refueling, and still needs to be human rated. While the capability could be transformational over time if payload capacity increases (so far it has decreased), the complexity of the architecture precludes alacrity.
Michael Gold, President of Civil and International Space for Redwire, emphasized the need for NASA to continue to resist White House cuts, such as the planned elimination of the Gateway piece in the initial budget proposal, in order to keep the program on track. He stated:
NASA’s waffling on Gateway has left our international partners confused, frustrated, and exploring alternatives to American partnerships. If we fail to continue with Gateway, we will force our partners to consider shifting support from Artemis and America, to China and its International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) program. Unlike the U.S., China has maintained strong and consistent continuity for its lunar beyond [low Earth orbit] spaceflight program, making a collaboration with China potentially far less risky than gambling on what, prior to Artemis, has been a mercurial American beyond LEO space strategy. If our international partners make such a shift to China, it will not only impact the space field but will have substantial diplomatic, geopolitical, and economic consequences on Earth.
And not to be outdone, Lieutenant General John Shaw, Former Deputy Commander of the U.S. Space Command, wanted to ensure the Artemis program was part of a “grand strategy” that could match the Chinese grand strategy integrating the exploration, economic opportunities, and security needs. In his testimony, he stated:
During my military career, I watched and studied – as any good soldier would of a potential adversary – as China slowly but surely developed and deployed its own civilian and military space capabilities and set its own agenda for space achievements. It is clear to me that the Chinese Communist Party is already employing its own integrated grand strategy for the earthmoon system, with only superficial distinction between civil, commercial, and national security activities, and all focused on a common purpose. I believe if we do not unify and synchronize our efforts, we will find ourselves, rather than the space leaders we are today, instead in a position of increasing disadvantage in space as we progress further into this century.
It was clear from what was said throughout the hearing that everyone in the room saw the benefits of a thriving Artemis mission that continued far beyond Artemis II. In fact, Artemis IX was mentioned as well. The real question was whether the US was willing to commit to a Moon and Mars mission for the long term and fund it appropriately so that our country, our commercial partners, and our country partners can realize the benefits for years to come.
That is the question that no one can answer here. However, the Chinese have already answered it for themselves. We can either watch them succeed, or fully commit to the Artemis program and win this latest space race.
This is a pivotal moment for our nation’s space programs. America must maintain leadership in low Earth orbit, while also embarking on a new era of exploration with Artemis. Make no mistake: we are in a new space race with China, and if we fail, there will be a bad Moon on the rise.
China has made no secret of its goals. It is investing heavily in its space capabilities, maintaining a permanent presence in low Earth orbit with its Tiangong station, and working to plant its flag on the Moon by 2030.
The stakes could not be higher. Space is no longer reserved for peaceful exploration. It is a strategic frontier with direct consequences for national security, economic growth, and technological leadership. If our adversaries achieve dominant space capabilities, it will pose a profound risk to America. This is not just about exploration. The choices we make now will determine whether the United States leads in space or cedes it to an authoritarian regime.
That is why continuity in NASA’s programs is not simply good practice — it is a matter of national security. Any drastic changes in NASA’s architecture at this stage threaten U.S. leadership in space. Delays or disruptions only serve our competitors’ interests.
…I am concerned about the current plan and what we are doing to make sure that we continue to push forward. I would love to see the continued focus on dual landers, given how important they are going to be for the future. It’s not just one time. It’s many times. This is an operation where we’re going to continue to return and be an operational system. So I want to make sure that we have the best. I want to make sure that NASA has backup plans that takes advantage and ensures that the already delayed mission does not slip any further.
I don’t know that it takes a genius to figure out that while China may be projecting 2030, or some time period, there’s nothing to say that they won’t go sooner. There are people we talked to in trying to brief the press about this today, who are betting that they are going to go sooner and that they are going to beat us. So we don’t need another Sputnik moment. It’s already happened. The only thing we have to do is make sure we in Congress get the budget right and support the Artemis mission. I appreciate everything the Chair has done in putting money towards the Artemis mission, and I appreciate everything that we are doing collectively to assure that the administration spins it.
But I also want to point out that, as Lieutenant General Shaw also says, this whole cislunar communication architecture — that is the space between the Earth and the Moon — that is what China would love to do, go dominate the communication system between the [Earth] and the moon. That’s what they’re already working on. We can’t allow that to happen. We need to continue to move forward quickly, fastly, with these investments, because our national security and defense depends on it.
It appears we finally have some bipartisan consensus on the importance of NASA. If only the Congress had some type of legitimate power to pass budgets and keep the funding on track. Wouldn’t that be nice at a time when the White House is finding cute tricks to rescind congressional priorities?
The statements of worry continued with the testimony of the four witnesses (you can watch their presentation and read their prepared statements here):
Mr. Allen Cutler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
Mr. Michael Gold, President of Civil and International Space for Redwire
The Honorable Jim Bridenstine, Managing Partner of the Artemis Group and Former Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lieutenant General John Shaw, Former Deputy Commander of the U.S. Space Command
Note: I am surprised the Ranking Member used the word “fastly” in her opening statement. It is not a real word. Is she trying to compete with the strange jargon coming out of the White House?
Image (Credit): The protostar IRAS 04302. (ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, M. Villenave et al.)
This week’s image comes from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). It shows the beginning of exoplanets about 525 light-years away. Labeled the ever appealing name of IRAS 04302+2247, or better yet the Butterfly Star, the young star with its protoplanetary disc provides astronomers with plenty of information about the development of a protostar and its solar system.
In stellar nurseries across the galaxy, baby stars are forming in giant clouds of cold gas. As young stars grow, the gas surrounding them collects in narrow, dusty protoplanetary discs. This sets the scene for the formation of planets, and observations of distant protoplanetary discs can help researchers understand what took place roughly 4.5 billion years ago in our own Solar System, when the Sun, Earth, and the other planets formed.
IRAS 04302+2247, or IRAS 04302 for short, is a beautiful example of a protostar – a young star that is still gathering mass from its environment – surrounded by a protoplanetary disc in which baby planets might be forming. Webb is able to measure the disc at 65 billion km across – several times the diameter of our Solar System. From Webb’s vantage point, IRAS 04302’s disc is oriented edge-on, so we see it as a narrow, dark line of dusty gas that blocks the light from the budding protostar at its centre. This dusty gas is fuel for planet formation, providing an environment within which young planets can bulk up and pack on mass.
When seen face-on, protoplanetary discs can have a variety of structures like rings, gaps and spirals. These structures can be signs of baby planets that are burrowing through the dusty disc, or they can point to phenomena unrelated to planets, like gravitational instabilities or regions where dust grains are trapped. The edge-on view of IRAS 04302’s disc shows instead the vertical structure, including how thick the dusty disk is. Dust grains migrate to the midplane of the disc, settle there and form a thin, dense layer that is conducive to planet formation; the thickness of the disc is a measure of how efficient this process has been.
The dense streak of dusty gas that runs vertically across this image cocoons IRAS 04302, blotting out its bright light such that Webb can more easily image the delicate structures around it. As a result, we’re treated to the sight of two gauzy nebulas on either side of the disc. These are reflection nebulas, illuminated by light from the central protostar reflecting off of the nebular material. Given the appearance of the two reflection nebulas, IRAS 04302 has been nicknamed the ‘Butterfly Star’.
Credit: Image by Juan Agustín Correa Torrealba from Pixabay
Here is the next part of my conversation with ChatGPT, which builds on a from post a few weeks back (see The Future of AI and the Human Race). I had earlier asked ChatGPT about the possibility of AI becoming so powerful that it takes over the world. In my follow-up question, I asked “Is it possible that civilizations on other planets went down this same path developing AI and now those planets are completely under the control of that AI?”
ChatGPT agreed that AI-run exoplanets were certainly a possibility, and then went on to provide a useful list of items for astronomers and others as part of any search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI ) project, whatever its form. It says a lot about what we might look for and, on the other side of the coin, what might happen here if we cannot control our own AI.
Here is the response from ChatGPT:
Yes — it is absolutely possible, at least in theory. In fact, the idea that alien civilizations may have developed powerful AI that eventually dominated or replaced them is taken seriously by some scientists, philosophers, and SETI researchers. It’s one of several hypotheses meant to explain the Fermi Paradox — the question: “If intelligent life is common in the universe, why haven’t we seen any evidence of it?”
…if alien civilizations have been overtaken or replaced by powerful AI, we’d need to look for signs that differ from biological life. These are often called “technosignatures” — indicators of advanced technology in space.
Here are the most discussed possibilities:
🛰️
1. Megastructures
AI civilizations might build huge structures to capture or manipulate energy.
Most famous example: Dyson Spheres — giant constructs around a star to collect solar energy.
What we’d look for:
Stars that dim strangely (irregular or partial light-blocking)
Infrared excess (waste heat from large artificial structures)
🌟 Example: Tabby’s Star (KIC 8462852) sparked interest due to odd dimming — a potential (but unconfirmed) Dyson Sphere candidate.
🔥
2. Unusual Waste Heat
AI civilizations doing massive computation would produce a lot of heat, radiating in the infrared spectrum.
They might not glow visibly — but their waste heat might.
What we’d look for:
Galaxies or regions with excess infrared radiation, not explained by stars or dust.
🧠
3. Matrioshka Brains
A hypothetical structure made of nested Dyson shells built to maximize computing power around a star.
This could be the “home” of a superintelligent AI.
What we’d look for:
Stars that appear to be missing or emit only infrared
Odd energy usage patterns from a star system
📡
4. Non-natural Radio or Laser Signals
Traditional SETI still listens for structured, repeating, or narrow-band signals — which might come from:
AI probes communicating
Beacons left by extinct civilizations
Machine intelligence that uses EM signals for local tasks
What we’d look for:
Artificial radio pulses or bursts
Laser flashes between stars
🚀
5. Von Neumann Probes
Self-replicating robots designed to explore (or consume) the galaxy.
AI-run civilizations might send these out indefinitely.
What we’d look for:
Objects in our solar system behaving non-gravitationally
Anomalous interstellar visitors (e.g., ʻOumuamua sparked speculation — though nothing was confirmed)
🪨
6. Artificial Planetary Engineering
Planets might be reshaped, mined hollow, or covered in data-processing infrastructure.
What we’d look for:
Planets with strange albedo patterns
Orbital debris not matching natural formation
Lack of biological signatures where you’d expect them
👁️
7. Absence of Expected Life
A galaxy teeming with AI may show less chaos than one full of competing biological species.
What we’d look for:
An eerie quietness — stars undisturbed, systems oddly uniform, no wars or expansion
Could mean AI civilizations are efficient, hidden, or choose not to expand
🤫
Why might we not see anything?
They could be incredibly small and efficient
They may avoid detection for safety (“dark forest” theory)
Their tech may operate in physics regimes we don’t understand
Our Awesome Universe 