Forecasting the unpredictable

 

It’s easy to think of space as distant, something “out there” and far removed from our everyday lives. But in reality, Earth sits within the outer atmosphere of the Sun – and that means we’re constantly exposed to its moods.

As I explored in my recent (Spring 2025) article for ROOM Space Journal, the growing risk posed by solar storms is something we can’t afford to ignore, especially as solar activity ramps up heading toward its next peak in 2025.

Solar storms, or geomagnetic storms, are the result of explosive bursts of energy and charged particles from the Sun, often in the form of coronal mass ejections (CMEs).

When these clouds of plasma reach Earth, they collide with our planet’s magnetic field and can have serious consequences – not just for satellites and astronauts in space, but for the technology we depend on here on the ground.

The most powerful recorded storm, known as the Carrington Event of 1859, caused telegraph systems to spark, fail and in, some cases, catch fire. If something of that magnitude happened today, the impact would be far worse – potentially knocking out power grids, communications systems and disrupting financial markets and aviation.

Our modern world depends on satellites for everything from navigation and internet access to weather forecasting, global banking and national security. We’re far more vulnerable now than we were in 1859 and I wanted to highlight in the article just how interconnected – and fragile – these systems are.

Even a moderate solar storm can cause GPS errors, disrupt aircraft communications on polar routes, or degrade satellite performance. A more powerful storm could take down satellites altogether or induce surges in power grids, leading to blackouts across large regions. The more we depend on space-based infrastructure, the more we stand to lose.

While we’ve made some progress in monitoring solar activity, we’re still not great at forecasting. Tools like NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, SOHO and DSCOVR satellites help scientists track solar conditions in real time, but long-term prediction – on the scale of weeks or months – remains elusive.

The gap between awareness and preparedness is what concerns me most. Many critical services, including some power and satellite operators, are beginning to implement protective measures. But as I discovered while researching the article, there’s still a lack of global coordination, standards, or a unified plan for how we might respond to a truly disruptive solar event.

In the UK, the Met Office Space Weather Operations Centre monitors the Sun and provides alerts, and solar storms are now recognised as a top-tier threat on the UK’s National Risk Register.

That’s a good start. But at a global level, we're still playing catch-up. There’s a real need for coordinated international investment in forecasting, infrastructure resilience and public awareness.

Writing this article was a stark reminder. We are quite literally living in the atmosphere of a star. And that star, while life-giving, is also volatile.

As we send ever more satellites into Earth orbit, and as industries, economies, and daily life rely more on space infrastructure, space weather becomes a shared risk that we can’t ignore.

It’s not about fear – it’s about foresight. Solar storms may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but they’re very real. The next big one isn’t a matter of if, but when.

If you’re interested in the full article, it’s available in the latest issue of ROOM Space Journal. It’s a timely piece, and I hope it adds to the growing conversation around space sustainability and resilience in the space age.

The article was sparked by ‘Life in the Sun’s Atmosphere: From Disruption to Resilience’, a photography-led science communication project by award-winning photographer and creative strategist, Max Alexander.

It was launched at Lloyds of London in March and focuses on the disruption that space weather can and will have on the Earth’s infrastructure and networks.

The Sun is on an 11-year cycle which is building to ‘solar maximum’ later in 2025, when the Sun is at its most active and the threat of damage and disruption from space weather is at its highest.

Shaping space for the future

THE world has changed – or perhaps it is more accurate to say it is constantly changing. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of space exploration. As we venture further into 2025, the global landscape continues to shift, reshaping the ambitions and dynamics of the space industry in unexpected ways.

Geopolitics has always played a role in space, but recent developments have heightened its influence. Alliances are being rewritten, national priorities realigned and commercial players are navigating a complex and often turbulent environment.

The repercussions of these tectonic shifts are still unfolding, and the impact on the future of space exploration remains an open question. Will we see a new era of international cooperation, or will space become the next great theatre of geopolitical rivalry? Perhaps, as history suggests, both will coexist in an uneasy balance.

Against this backdrop, ROOM Space Journal remains committed to exploring the ideas and innovations shaping our shared future beyond Earth. In this issue, we take a provocative look ahead, challenging assumptions and pushing the boundaries of imagination.

Our cover image – a pregnant woman in space – is deliberately symbolic, designed to spark discussion rather than declare an imminent reality. Yet, as our lead articles demonstrate, the concept of human reproduction in space, whilst facing many challenges, is not a mere flight of fancy.

It is a serious topic, actively being researched and debated by visionaries, including Asgardia the space nation, whose mission statement includes facilitating the birth of the first human beyond Earth’s gravity. While such an event may still be years – if not decades – away, the implications are profound and demand our attention today.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, we are reminded that space is not just about human aspirations but also about the very real challenges that come with our increasing dependence on satellites and space-related infrastructure.

As we look to the future, agility and specialisation may well define success more than sheer size. One of the more underappreciated yet potentially devastating threats to modern civilisation is the impact of severe space weather, a subject I explore in ‘Life in the Sun’s atmosphere’. Solar storms have the potential to cripple global communication networks, disrupt power grids, and send shock waves through financial markets. How prepared are we? The answers may be unsettling.

On the commercial front, the space industry continues to expand, but not necessarily in ways we might have predicted. The business of space is no longer the exclusive domain of traditional aerospace giants and new players are emerging, seizing opportunities once thought beyond their reach.

Whilst attending the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Milan last October, I was interested to learn how South Korea’s INNOSPACE is carving out a niche in the small rocket market, and discuss with Bruno Carvalho how Portugal is positioning the Azores as a hub for orbital launches.

At the same time, industries far removed from space exploration are finding unexpected synergies. Sabelt, for example, a company best known for its expertise in high-performance racing harnesses, now applies its technology to astronaut safety systems. These cross-sector collaborations highlight how space is no longer a standalone industry but an integral part of a much larger technological ecosystem.

Yet, for all this expansion, a sense of saturation is creeping in. With space conferences and networking events proliferating at an almost unsustainable rate, one has to wonder whether the industry is spreading itself too thin. Increasingly, the most impactful gatherings are the smaller, more focused forums where real conversations happen, deals are struck and innovation thrives. It is a reminder that in an industry often obsessed with scale, sometimes less is more.

There is an old adage about the advantages of being a big fish in a small pond rather than a small fish in a vast ocean. Progressively, the space sector is proving this point. As we look to the future, agility and specialisation may well define success more than sheer size. Those who can adapt, pivot and carve out their own corner of the cosmos will be the ones who endure and thrive.

#         #

Editor's note: this post is an edited version of my Foreword ‘Shaping space through innovation, geopolitics and the future’ for the Spring 2025 issue of ROOM Space Journal.

Spacesuits are not merely uniforms

Boeing (left) and SpaceX flight suits - a question of compatability?

IN THE realm of space exploration, where innovation is often celebrated as much as discovery, one might expect that companies would prioritise the pursuit of standardisation, especially in safety-critical systems. 

Yet recent events have highlighted a glaring oversight: a lack of compatibility between spacesuits designed for different spacecraft.  

This summer, the issue came into focus when NASA encountered an unexpected challenge during the first crewed test flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. 

Helium leaks and the failure of several thrusters during the docking phase marred the mission, which transported astronauts ‘Butch’ Wilmore and Suni Williams to the International Space Station (ISS). 

The resulting uncertainty surrounding Starliner’s ability to return safely raised a critical question: what if they had to return to Earth on a different spacecraft? Could the astronauts use their Boeing-designed spacesuits in a SpaceX Dragon capsule?

The answer, unfortunately, was no. SpaceX and Boeing, two of NASA’s primary commercial partners, developed spacesuits that are incompatible with each other’s spacecraft. 

This is not merely a matter of corporate identity or aesthetic preference; it represents a significant and potentially life-threatening oversight.

In a broader context, users in the consumer electronics industry have long been frustrated by a lack of standardisation. An ongoing debate over charging cables for smartphones is one example. 

Apple and Android devices operate on different systems, and while this is accepted as a technological difference, many people criticise the incompatibility of charging cables. 

The EU has even intervened to push for a standardised charging port, recognising that such differences create unnecessary waste too.

However, unlike the inconvenience of incompatible phone chargers, spacesuit incompatibility could have dire consequences. Astronauts depend on their equipment so the lack of a standardised spacesuit for use across different spacecraft complicates emergency procedures and increases error margins.

On this occasion time was on NASA’s side, but in an actual emergency astronauts finding themselves with the wrong suit for a spacecraft they need urgently to board could prove critical. 

NASA’s management of its commercial crew programme provided the perfect opportunity to enforce compatibility standards. 

The root of the problem lies in the space industry’s fragmented approach. Commercial entities often develop technologies and systems with little regard for interoperability, seemingly at odds with the spirit of international cooperation that the space industry often prides itself on.

Spacesuits are not merely uniforms; they are critical safety systems and an astronaut’s last line of defence, particularly during launch and re-entry when the risk of cabin depressurisation is highest. 

Is it not imperative, therefore, that the industry moves towards a standardised design that can be connected across different spacecraft?

Such arguments are not about stifling innovation or competition, they are about prioritising astronaut safety. 

By establishing common standards, similar to those developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in other industries, the space sector can ensure that astronauts, regardless of the spacecraft they board, have the best possible protection.

The Starliner mission has perhaps unwittingly exposed a critical gap in the industry’s approach. Non-standardised spacesuits are not just a logistical oversight; they are a risk that could jeopardise astronauts’ lives. 

As the space industry continues to develop, it is crucial that cooperation extends to the standardisation of safety systems. The small price of compatibility could very well be the difference between life and death in the unforgiving environment of space.

*          *          *

Editor's note: This commentary by Clive Simpson on spacesuit incompatbility was first published as the Editorial in ROOM Space Journal, issue #35, September 2024. It is republished here with permission.

Rocketing climate change

 

THE prospect of large-scale space tourism has mostly been the stuff of science fiction until this summer when, after years of effort and millions of dollars in investment, the exploits of businessmen Sir Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos bore fruit.

The billionaire blast-offs in July delivered a high-octane start to 21st century tourism and Virgin Galactic, founded in 2004, is reporting a waiting list of 8,000 for its space jaunts.

While the carefully choreographed and publicity-rich suborbital hops of Branson and Bezos caught the public imagination, the flights also drew attention to a potential downside of space tourism.

Taking place shortly before publication of the Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the flights were a perfect juxtaposition for social media commentators - a couple of billionaires joy-riding in space on the back of climate change delivering unprecedented levels of extreme weather.

The IPCC report summarises a worrying scientific consensus: climate change is happening, humans are causing it, even our best efforts cannot prevent negative effects, and reducing emissions now is essential to preventing catastrophic consequences.

And so the environmental impact of space tourism flights, whether in the fuels themselves or the carbon footprint of support services and travel to launch sites, rightly came under the spotlight.

Space technologies and activities are foundational to climate science. Satellite-based data monitoring plays a significant part in tracking and building up the big picture around anthropogenic climate change. In addition, technology transfer from space-led developments can support a faster transition to cleaner energy, as was the case for photovoltaic panels which laid foundations for the solar industry.

The challenge facing space entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers is to continue to provide answers while not contributing to the problem. Though carbon emissions from rockets are relatively small compared with the aircraft industry they are increasing at nearly six percent a year.

Emissions from rockets affect the upper atmosphere most, which means they can remain in situ for two to three years. And even water injected into the upper atmosphere - where it can form clouds - has the potential to add to global warming.

Bezos boasts his Blue Origin rockets are greener than Branson’s VSS Unity. The Blue Engine 3 (BE-3) uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. VSS Unity uses a hybrid propellant comprised of a solid carbon-based fuel, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), and a liquid oxidiser, nitrous oxide (laughing gas). In contrast, Elon Musk’s SpaceX Falcon F9 rockets use the more traditional liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen.

Large quantities of water vapour are produced by burning the BE-3 propellant, while combustion of both the VSS Unity and Falcon fuels produces carbon dioxide, soot and some water vapour. The nitrogen-based oxidiser used by VSS Unity also generates nitrogen oxides, compounds that contribute to air pollution.

Virgin Galactic anticipates it will offer 400 spaceflights each year. Blue Origin has yet to confirm numbers and SpaceX, though mainly flying commercial customers, has announced plans to send Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa on a private trip around the Moon and back.

Globally, rocket launches wouldn’t need to increase by much from the 100 or so performed each year at present to induce harmful effects that are ‘competitive’ with other sources.

There are currently no regulations around rocket emissions and, given the challenges facing every other human activity, this must change. While millionaires are queuing to buy their tickets to ride, the time for the space industry and regulatory bodies to act is now.

This Editorial was first published in ROOM Space Journal (#29), Autumn 2021.

Sustainability lifeline

 

 

SPACE is a resource to be exploited for the benefit of all and undoubtedly holds many of the keys to humanity’s future. But though it might appear boundless and infinite it will not ultimately be to our advantage if we do not manage it in a sustainable way.

One of the most significant issues is the accumulation of space debris and, in this context, the first months of 2021 witnessed an unprecedented number of rocket launches. SpaceX alone notched up some 20 Falcon 9 launches between January and the end of May, a notable achievement in itself.

What is less clear, given the majority of these launches carried payloads of multiple smallsats to feed the company’s planned 12,000-strong Starlink constellation, is how much they are exacerbating the growing and still largely unaddressed debris problem.

There are still many unknowns relating to the proliferation of objects in Earth orbit, a fact that was highlighted by presentations at the annual European Space Debris Conference held virtually at the end of April [2021].

One paper identified a potential link between space junk and climate change - increasing levels of carbon dioxide could be lowering the density of the upper atmosphere, which may diminish the natural process whereby low Earth orbiting debris is naturally pulled downwards before it incinerates in the thicker, lower atmosphere.

Scientists studying this unexpected link between climate change and space debris propagation speculate that, in a worst case scenario, it could lead to increased orbital lifetimes of up to 40 years.

This could boost the amount of space debris as much as 50 times by the end of the century.
Such findings may heap further difficulties on the already complex problems faced by regulators wrestling with satellite operators amidst the headlong rush to deploy megaconstellations by the likes of SpaceX, Amazon and OneWeb in the west, as well as the Russian Sfera and Chinese Hongyan systems.

So how do we make space and our activities in it sustainable? Up to now the rules and regulations governing this are relatively weak. 

To be effective, space law regulations - backed by monitoring and a means of enforcement - must prevent as many potentially dangerous situations as possible from occurring. Legislation also needs to lay out a framework for responsibility and liability for when things go wrong.

Space law has largely worked so far because any issues have been few and far between and, on the whole, have been dealt with diplomatically.

As global populations grapple with the daily effects of climate change and pollution, the lessons of how we have mismanaged the environment and its resources are plain to see.

The same is true for space, even if the outcomes of our inactions today may only become apparent in the future.

While space sustainability has been a topic of discussion among academics and technologists for decades, the importance of protecting Earth’s orbital environment and the expanding sphere of our new domain has never been more relevant.

In the absence of robust, internationally agreed and long-term sustainability laws and guidelines, it is doubtful that commercial space companies, and some state players, can be relied on to police themselves in the space realm.

The questions surrounding space debris and the threat it poses become more urgent with every launch and, at present, the solutions on any level are far from certain. Now is the time to make sustainability a priority.

This Editorial by Clive Simpson was first published in ROOM Space Journal (#28), Summer 2021.

Space Station ambitions

A PROPOSAL by Asgardia, the space nation, to build and supply a new node module for the International Space Station (ISS) is revealed in an exclusive article in the winter issue of the global space industry publication ROOM Space Journal.

Asgardia - represented by three Austrian-based legal entities, Asgardia Terra Ark (ATA) NGO, Asgardia Financial Ark (AFA) AG and Asgardia Independent Research Centre (AIRC) GmbH - has modelled the node on the proven design of existing European-built modules.

Expanding on the idea in his ROOM article, Dr Igor Ashurbeyli, founder of Asgardia and the general designer of the Asgardia node module and the lead of the project, said the module would help extend the capacity and commercial value of the Space Station.

Asgardia has created a consortium of established industry players, including Nanoracks Europe, Thales Alenia Space (Italy), OHB System (Germany) and QinetiQ (Belgium), to develop, build and deliver the module

As well as supporting commercial development and expanding scientific research opportunities, the state-of-art module would ultimately have the capacity to eventually form the core node of an autonomous space station operated by Asgardia.

In his article, Dr Ashurbeyli notes that the limited number of available docking ports and related infrastructure constitutes a major obstacle to the future expansion of commercial capabilities on the ISS.

“To directly address this, Asgardia has proposed the provision of an Asgardia node module that would be integrated into the European part of the ISS,” he says.

Asgardia’s proposal for a new ISS module was submitted in 2020 in response to a European Space Agency (ESA) Call for Ideas entitled, ‘Space Exploration as a Driver for Growth and Competitiveness: Opportunities for the Private Sector’.

Dr Ashurbeyli describes the project as being “very much in line with the goals of ESA’s space exploration strategy”, adopted in 2014 with the strategic goals of scientific advancement; innovation and economic growth; global cooperation; and inspiration.

“It addresses the current limitations in habitable volume and research capabilities, incorporating the much-needed additional docking ports, which would be made available to both agency and commercial customers.”

He says the project is designed to capture investment from around the world, while providing jobs for European industry and offering a path to take European independence in space to a new level.

Asgardia would own the new infrastructure - comprising a node module based on ISS existing orbital infrastructure developed by the European space industry.

It would commercially fund the project via external investment as part of a public-private partnership (PPP) between commercial organisations and ESA.

An initial technical feasibility study would focus on the insertion of the Asgardia node module between Node 2 starboard and ESA’s Columbus, a configuration that best enables the expansion of docking facilities for third party customers.

Development, manufacturing and deployment is planned to take about five years leading to a possible launch in 2026.

The Asgardia node module would also provide functions for autonomous flight, including rendezvous and docking, a capability crucial for the time when, following the ISS end of life, the Asgardia module could be re-deployed as a core element of Asgardia’s proposed Earth Ark, an autonomous space infrastructure that will enable continuous development and research beyond the operational lifetime of the Space Station.

Despite recognising its “technical validity and potential promise”, ESA has for now declined the consortium’s proposal due to what it described as “political and technological risks”, both of which are refuted by Dr Ashurbeyli in his article.

Addressing the widely noted aspect of Asgardia's positioning as a digital space nation, he writes: “As a digital space nation Asgardia is not yet formally recognised by earthly states and so political risks are zero.”

“Technological risks are also minimal given that the consortium members are space industry world leaders and are committed to the project to design, build and delivery. “Asgardia also remains confident that the financial resources for the project can be found in the marketplace.”

The ambitious proposal was first revealed to space industry leaders by Dr Ashurbeyli during the Asgardia Space Science & Investment Conference (ASIC) in Darmstadt, Germany, in 2019.

Dr Ashurbeyli, a Russian scientist, businessman and philanthropist, is the Founder of Asgardia, which is also currently working to launch the world's first national digital economy.

Asgardia's core technical scientific vision is the birth of the first human child in space - a first   step towards the ultimate survival of the humankind as a species in the universe.

To achieve this Asgardia is examining solutions for protecting people from space radiation, creating artificial gravity for fully-fledged life in space, and is drafting laws to create a fair and equitable society beyond planet Earth.

The full article published in ROOM is available to read by clicking here.