In 1985, the Soviet space program faced a crisis unlike any before: the orbital space station Salyut 7 had gone silent. It was tumbling in orbit, unresponsive, powerless—and possibly lost forever. But instead of abandoning it, the Soviets launched an unprecedented mission to perform the first manual docking and in-orbit repair of a dead spacecraft. Cosmonauts Vladimir Dzhanibekov and Viktor Savinykh were sent to revive the lifeless station. The complexity, danger, and sheer audacity of their mission have earned it the reputation of the most epic repair in space history. Here are the ten major challenges they faced.
1. A Dead Station in Orbit
Salyut 7 had mysteriously stopped transmitting signals, effectively becoming a 20-ton piece of drifting debris. All telemetry was lost. The station’s solar panels were no longer generating power, leaving all onboard systems—including heating and communications—completely inoperative. Engineers feared its batteries had frozen, and that the interior could be filled with condensation or ice. For the cosmonauts, it meant flying blind toward a dark, silent object in space. Without any onboard response, even its exact orientation was unknown—a terrifying prospect for docking.
2. Docking Without Autopilot
Most spacecraft rely on automated systems for docking, but with Salyut 7 unpowered, the cosmonauts had to manually dock with a free-floating, possibly tumbling station. Dzhanibekov had to carefully pilot the Soyuz T-13 spacecraft within meters of Salyut 7, assess its rotation, and adjust accordingly—something never before attempted. There was no radar assistance, no synchronization, and no margin for error. Misjudging velocity or angle could have resulted in a catastrophic collision. Docking took several tense attempts over two days before it was finally successful.
3. The Fear of a Collision
Approaching a dead station posed enormous risk. The two spacecraft were moving at nearly 28,000 km/h relative to Earth. Even a minor miscalculation in trajectory could result in a collision that would destroy both the Soyuz and Salyut 7. Dzhanibekov had to rely solely on visual cues, manual controls, and nerves of steel. In one moment, they hovered meters away while computing how fast and in what direction the station was spinning. With an emergency abort procedure ready, they finally matched speed and orientation with remarkable precision.
4. Entering a Frozen Tomb
Once docked, the next challenge was entering the station. With no power, the interior was ice-cold, estimated at -10°C or lower. The air inside was uncirculated, potentially toxic, and filled with floating ice crystals and condensation. Using battery-powered flashlights, the cosmonauts carefully floated through the station. Surfaces were icy to the touch. They had to wear breathing masks initially and worked in thick clothing to avoid hypothermia. The eerie silence and cold made the station feel like a space grave, not a functioning laboratory.
5. No Lights, No Heat, No Tools
Everything had to be done in darkness. Salyut 7’s entire electrical system was offline, meaning no lights, no heaters, no fans, and no tools—until the cosmonauts could reactivate it. The station’s backup power was depleted. They carried portable power units and had to perform critical reconnections while conserving energy. They had to avoid generating static charges that could ignite anything flammable. Without powered ventilation, even exhaled carbon dioxide became a danger. Every movement and every repair had to be executed with extreme caution and efficiency.
6. Reconnecting the Power System
The heart of the mission was reviving the electrical grid. The cosmonauts painstakingly rewired circuits, rerouted solar panel connections, and jumpstarted batteries using power from Soyuz. They had to test each subsystem manually, looking for short circuits or burnt-out components in freezing conditions. Rebooting the main power system took several days, and even then, it was a step-by-step process. They were essentially cold-booting an entire space station from scratch—an act of daring that required both deep technical knowledge and incredible endurance.
7. Risk of Electrical Fire
As systems slowly came online, one misconnection could cause sparks or an electrical fire in the oxygen-rich atmosphere—a fatal scenario in the vacuum of space. They used voltmeters and relays to carefully measure current flow before reconnecting each subsystem. The moment they activated the heaters, the cosmonauts had to monitor for overheating or short circuits hidden within frozen wires. Fortunately, their calculations held. Bit by bit, the lights flickered on, heaters roared to life, and the station breathed again.
8. Psychological Stress and Isolation
Unlike modern missions with real-time support, Dzhanibekov and Savinykh were alone with limited radio contact. They faced extreme psychological pressure, performing hazardous repairs in total silence, surrounded by frozen metal. The eerie atmosphere and claustrophobic conditions could easily induce panic or error. But their training and mutual trust prevailed. Viktor Savinykh kept a detailed diary, later published, showing the mental toll and emotional weight of the mission. Every task was a gamble between life and death—and success or global humiliation for the Soviet program.
9. Living in a Broken Habitat
Even after restoring power, life aboard Salyut 7 was no picnic. It took weeks to bring systems back online, and the station remained partially damaged. They had to clean mold, dry out walls, and repair life-support systems. Supplies were limited. Showers and hygiene facilities were nonfunctional for days. Sleeping was done in sub-zero sleeping bags. Yet the cosmonauts persevered, eventually restoring enough functionality for Salyut 7 to be occupied for months afterward. Their resilience turned a near-dead station into a home once more.
10. Legacy of the Impossible Mission
The repair of Salyut 7 is now viewed as a miracle of engineering and human courage. It was the first—and only—time astronauts docked with and repaired a fully unresponsive space station. Their success saved millions of rubles in equipment, extended Soviet dominance in space for a few more years, and laid groundwork for future orbital servicing missions. It remains one of the most dramatic and heroic missions in space history, even inspiring the 2017 Russian film Salyut 7. Against all odds, two men resurrected a dead station—and made history.
The Incredible Rescue of Apollo 13: A Fight for Survival in Space
The Apollo 13 mission, launched on April 11, 1970, was intended to be the third lunar landing. However, just two days into the mission, an explosion turned it into a life-threatening ordeal. The crew—Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert—faced a series of near-impossible challenges that required swift problem-solving and ingenuity. With NASA engineers working tirelessly from Earth, the astronauts managed to return home safely. This article details the critical problems Apollo 13 encountered and the heroic efforts that led to one of the most remarkable rescues in space exploration history.
1. The Oxygen Tank Explosion
On April 13, an oxygen tank in the service module exploded due to a faulty wire. The explosion damaged the spacecraft, causing a significant drop in electrical power and oxygen supply. The blast also compromised the fuel cells, cutting off the primary energy source. As a result, the crew had to shut down non-essential systems to conserve power. The explosion turned Apollo 13 from a routine lunar mission into a desperate fight for survival. NASA engineers quickly had to devise alternative strategies to keep the astronauts alive and bring them safely back to Earth.
2. Loss of Electrical Power
The explosion led to a critical power shortage as the damaged fuel cells no longer provided electricity. The command module’s batteries became the only source of power, but they had to be conserved for reentry. As a solution, the astronauts moved into the lunar module, which had its own power supply. However, this backup system was only designed to support two astronauts for a short time, not three for an extended period. Engineers on Earth had to develop ways to stretch the available resources while ensuring that vital systems remained operational.
3. Oxygen Depletion and Carbon Dioxide Buildup
With the command module disabled, the crew relied on the lunar module’s oxygen supply. However, the module was not meant to support three astronauts for an extended time, leading to a dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide. The lithium hydroxide canisters in the lunar module were insufficient, requiring an urgent solution. NASA engineers famously improvised a method to fit the square command module canisters into the round lunar module filters using plastic bags, duct tape, and other onboard materials. The astronauts successfully implemented this solution, preventing a deadly rise in carbon dioxide levels.
4. Navigation Without a Computer
After the explosion, the guidance computer lost its reference points, making precise navigation difficult. Normally, astronauts relied on the onboard computer to calculate their trajectory. However, with limited power and malfunctioning systems, they had to use a sextant and the Sun’s position to realign their course manually. Jim Lovell, an experienced pilot, performed critical adjustments, allowing the crew to maintain a safe trajectory. NASA engineers guided them through the complex calculations required to perform these maneuvers with extreme precision.
5. Limited Water and Food Supplies
With power conservation measures in place, the lunar module’s water supply was also restricted. The astronauts had to ration their water intake, drinking significantly less than usual. Dehydration and exhaustion became serious concerns, especially for Fred Haise, who developed a urinary tract infection due to the lack of hydration. Additionally, food supplies were limited, and the crew relied on cold, partially hydrated meals. Despite these hardships, they remained focused on survival and followed NASA’s instructions to maximize their chances of returning safely.
6. Temperature Drop and Condensation
As the spacecraft lost power, temperatures inside the lunar module dropped to near-freezing levels. The cold environment made it increasingly difficult for the astronauts to function efficiently. Additionally, condensation built up inside the spacecraft, raising concerns about potential electrical shorts when power was eventually restored. The astronauts endured extreme discomfort, wearing all available clothing layers to stay warm. NASA engineers carefully managed power usage to prevent additional failures, ensuring the spacecraft’s systems remained intact for the critical reentry phase.
7. Course Correction and Gravity Assist
To safely return to Earth, Apollo 13 needed a precise trajectory adjustment using the lunar module’s descent engine. A crucial burn was executed to change the spacecraft’s path and ensure reentry into Earth's atmosphere. The crew had to manually time and perform this maneuver with extreme accuracy. They used Earth’s horizon as a reference point since their navigation systems were limited. The gravity assist from the Moon helped propel Apollo 13 back towards Earth, but constant adjustments were necessary to keep the spacecraft on course.
8. Powering Up the Command Module
As Apollo 13 approached Earth, the crew needed to transfer back to the command module for reentry. However, with minimal remaining power, the module had to be carefully powered up. NASA engineers developed a step-by-step sequence to bring the systems online without overloading the fragile electrical circuits. Jack Swigert meticulously followed these instructions, successfully reviving the command module. This delicate procedure ensured the spacecraft could sustain life and function properly during the final and most dangerous phase of the mission.
9. The Final Reentry and Parachute Deployment
The reentry phase was highly risky due to the weakened heat shield. Any damage from the explosion could have compromised its integrity, leading to a fatal breakup in Earth's atmosphere. Additionally, the parachutes needed to deploy correctly for a safe landing in the Pacific Ocean. During reentry, there was a tense four-minute communication blackout as the capsule passed through intense heat. Finally, radio contact was restored, and the parachutes successfully deployed. Apollo 13 splashed down safely in the ocean, marking the end of an incredible rescue mission.
10. Lessons Learned and Legacy
Apollo 13 is remembered not only for its near-tragic disaster but also for the remarkable ingenuity and teamwork that saved the crew. NASA learned invaluable lessons about spacecraft safety, crisis management, and problem-solving under pressure. The mission demonstrated the resilience of human space exploration and remains a symbol of perseverance. The phrase "Failure is not an option," popularized by Flight Director Gene Kranz, embodies the spirit of Apollo 13. Even today, its legacy continues to inspire astronauts, engineers, and scientists who push the boundaries of space travel.
The Voyager Spacecraft and Interstellar Space: A Journey Beyond the Heliosphere
In the annals of human exploration, few endeavors rival the audacity and longevity of NASA’s Voyager spacecraft. Launched in 1977, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 embarked on a mission that would redefine our understanding of the solar system and push the boundaries of what we believe possible in space exploration. As Meghan Bartels notes in the April 2025 issue of Scientific American, these twin probes are the only spacecraft equipped with functioning instruments to have escaped the heliosphere—the vast bubble of space dominated by the Sun’s magnetic field and solar wind—offering humanity its first direct glimpse into interstellar space. Their journey, initially designed as a "grand tour" of the outer planets, has morphed into an interstellar odyssey, revealing a cosmos far more complex and dynamic than scientists ever anticipated.
The Voyagers’ story begins with a rare celestial alignment. In the late 1970s, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune aligned in a configuration that occurs once every 176 years, enabling a gravity-assisted trajectory that maximized efficiency. Voyager 2 launched on August 20, 1977, followed by Voyager 1 on September 5, capitalizing on this opportunity. Their primary mission was to study the gas giants and their moons, a task they executed with stunning success. Voyager 1 revealed Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere and Io’s volcanic activity, while at Saturn, it uncovered Titan’s thick nitrogen-rich atmosphere and a new ring, the G-ring. Voyager 2, the only spacecraft to visit Uranus and Neptune, discovered superfast winds, new moons, and Uranus’s tilted magnetic field, alongside Neptune’s Great Dark Spot. These findings, detailed in NASA’s mission archives, transformed planetary science and set the stage for the probes’ extended mission.
As the planetary phase concluded in 1989, NASA redirected the Voyagers toward the heliosphere’s edge. Voyager 1 reached the termination shock—the point where the solar wind slows abruptly—in December 2004 at 94 astronomical units (AU), or about 8.7 billion miles from the Sun. Voyager 2 followed in August 2007 at 84 AU. This boundary marks the beginning of the heliosheath, a turbulent region where solar material interacts with the interstellar medium. The trek through this zone was arduous; Voyager 1 took nearly eight years to cross from the termination shock to the heliopause, the outer edge of the heliosphere, entering interstellar space on August 25, 2012. Voyager 2 joined it on November 5, 2018. These crossings, confirmed by NASA in 2013 and 2019 respectively, were defined by a sharp increase in particle density—ten times higher than within the solar wind—detected via plasma wave instruments.
The interstellar medium, as Bartels describes, is a relic of the solar system’s birth environment, teeming with galactic cosmic rays, dust from dying stars, and a plasma distinct from the Sun’s influence. Yet, the Voyagers’ findings have upended expectations. Scientists anticipated a stark shift in magnetic field direction at the heliopause, but both probes found continuity between heliospheric and interstellar fields, suggesting a more gradual transition. In 2020, Voyager 1 encountered a "pressure front"—an unexplained spike in magnetic field intensity—hinting at dynamic interactions possibly driven by solar outbursts reverberating through interstellar space. A 2019 Nature Astronomy study of Voyager 2’s crossing further revealed a "magnetic barrier" where interstellar plasma compresses against the heliosphere, a phenomenon not fully predicted by models.
The heliosphere’s shape remains a mystery. Bartels notes competing theories: a comet-like structure with a long tail or a croissant-like form with lobes, influenced by the Sun’s magnetic field and interstellar pressures. Data from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), launched in 2008, complements the Voyagers’ observations by detecting energetic neutral atoms from the heliosheath, revealing a "ribbon" feature missed by the probes due to their trajectories. The upcoming Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP), set for launch in late 2025, aims to refine this picture with higher-resolution particle measurements from Lagrange Point 1, a million miles sunward of Earth. Meanwhile, New Horizons, post its 2015 Pluto flyby, is on track to reach the heliopause by the early 2030s, though its power will fade soon after.
The Voyagers’ longevity is a testament to engineering ingenuity. Powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) using decaying plutonium, they’ve operated for over 47 years, far exceeding their planned five-year mission. However, their power dwindles by about 4 watts annually, forcing NASA to deactivate instruments strategically. By April 2025, Voyager 1’s cosmic ray subsystem and Voyager 2’s low-energy charged particle instrument have been shut off, as reported by Space.com in March 2025, extending their lives by another year. With three instruments remaining on each, NASA hopes to sustain one per probe into the 2030s, though glitches—like Voyager 1’s 2024 communication blackout, resolved after months of effort—threaten this goal.
Beyond science, the Voyagers carry a cultural legacy: the Golden Records. Conceived by Carl Sagan, these 12-inch gold-plated discs encode Earth’s sounds, images, and greetings in 55 languages, a message to potential extraterrestrial finders. As Bartels reflects, their poetic resonance endures, even as the probes’ scientific output wanes. Their data, transmitted via the Deep Space Network, takes over 22 hours to reach Earth from Voyager 1’s 167 AU distance as of early 2025, per NASA’s mission status page, a testament to their isolation.
The Voyagers’ discoveries challenge our understanding of the heliosphere’s role. Merav Opher, quoted by Bartels, suggests it shields Earth from cosmic rays, potentially influencing life’s evolution. Recent studies, like a 2023 Astrophysical Journal paper, propose the heliosphere’s interaction with interstellar material shapes its boundaries more dynamically than static models suggest, with Voyager data hinting at solar wind echoes persisting beyond the heliopause. Yet, their limited vantage—two points in a vast 3D structure—leaves gaps, as David McComas notes, likening them to "biopsies" of an uncharted realm.
Looking ahead, the proposed Interstellar Probe, though not prioritized in the 2022 Decadal Survey, aims for a 50-year mission to 1,000 AU, far surpassing the Voyagers’ reach. China’s planned interstellar mission, targeting 100 AU by 2049, adds global momentum. For now, the Voyagers soldier on, their fading signals a bittersweet reminder of humanity’s first interstellar steps. As Opher laments, their instruments will likely shut off before fully unveiling the interstellar tapestry, yet their legacy—scientific, cultural, and inspirational—endures, urging us to keep exploring the cosmic sea they’ve begun to chart.
Voyager I
Voyager II
Uncharted Frontiers: Gaps in Voyager’s Legacy and Future Steps in Interstellar Exploration
The Voyager spacecraft, launched in 1977, have provided humanity with an unprecedented window into the outer heliosphere and interstellar space, these probes have revealed a dynamic interplay between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, challenging preconceived notions about magnetic fields, particle densities, and the heliosphere’s structure. Yet, despite their groundbreaking contributions, significant gaps remain in our understanding due to the limitations of their design, trajectories, and aging technology. As of April 2, 2025, these gaps highlight critical areas that current probes cannot address, necessitating new missions and approaches in the near future.
Aspects Not Covered by Voyager Missions
1. Global Heliospheric Structure and Shape The Voyagers have sampled only two specific points along the heliosphere’s boundary, likened by David McComas to "biopsies" of a vast, three-dimensional entity. This leaves the heliosphere’s overall shape—whether comet-like, croissant-shaped, or otherwise—unresolved. Their trajectories, dictated by planetary flybys, missed key features like the IBEX-detected "ribbon" of energetic neutral atoms, limiting our ability to map the heliosphere’s global dynamics. The probes’ data suggest unexpected continuity in magnetic fields across the heliopause, but without multi-point observations, we cannot construct a comprehensive 3D model.
2. Temporal Variability Over Long Scales The Voyagers have observed the heliosphere’s response to the Sun’s 11-year solar cycle, with Voyager 1 crossing the termination shock multiple times as the boundary shifted. However, their operational lifespan—now nearing 48 years—cannot capture longer-term variations, such as those spanning centuries or influenced by the Sun’s motion through varying interstellar densities. The 2020 "pressure front" detected by Voyager 1 hints at dynamic events, but we lack the continuous, long-term data needed to understand these phenomena fully.
3. Detailed Interstellar Medium Composition While the Voyagers’ plasma wave and cosmic ray instruments have detected galactic cosmic rays and interstellar plasma, their sensors were not designed to analyze the interstellar medium’s chemical composition or dust properties in depth. The presence of dust from dying stars and varying plasma densities is inferred, but specifics—such as isotopic ratios or organic compounds—remain beyond their reach. This limits our understanding of the solar system’s birth environment and its interaction with the galaxy.
4. High-Resolution Magnetic and Plasma Interactions The Voyagers’ instruments, built with 1970s technology, offer coarse resolution compared to modern standards. For instance, the unexpected magnetic field alignment at the heliopause and the "magnetic barrier" noted in a 2019 Nature Astronomy study suggest complex interactions, but the probes lack the sensitivity to dissect these processes. Their fading power—down to about 50% of launch capacity by 2025, per NASA—further restricts data collection, leaving subtle phenomena unprobed.
5. Coverage Beyond Current Distances At 167 AU (Voyager 1) and 139 AU (Voyager 2) as of early 2025, the probes are still relatively close to the heliopause, within a transitional zone where solar influence lingers. They cannot reach the pristine interstellar medium, estimated to begin hundreds of AU away, nor observe how the heliosphere appears from a distant external perspective, critical for resolving its shape and extent.
What We Need to Do in the Near Future
To address these gaps, the scientific community must prioritize new missions and technologies in the coming decade, building on Voyager’s legacy. Here are key steps for the near future:
1. Launch a Dedicated Interstellar Probe The proposed Interstellar Probe (IP), though not prioritized in the 2022 Decadal Survey, exemplifies the next step. Designed to reach 1,000 AU over 50 years, IP would use a heavy-lift rocket (e.g., SpaceX’s Starship or NASA’s SLS) for a fast trajectory, carrying advanced plasma, magnetic field, and dust analyzers. Unlike Voyager’s planetary focus, IP would target the heliosphere and beyond, offering a distant vantage point to image its structure. By 2030, securing funding and international collaboration perhaps with ESA or China, which plans a 100 AU mission by 2049—could make this a reality.
2. Deploy a Multi-Point Observation Network To map the heliosphere globally, we need simultaneous measurements from multiple locations. A constellation of small satellites or CubeSats, launched to different heliospheric regions (e.g., nose, flanks, tail), could provide this. Equipped with modern magnetometers and particle detectors, they would track spatial and temporal variations, complementing IMAP’s 2025 launch at Lagrange Point 1. By 2035, such a network could resolve the heliosphere’s shape and dynamics, addressing Voyager’s single-point limitation.
3. Enhance Instrument Sensitivity and Scope Future probes must carry high-resolution instruments tailored for interstellar science. Mass spectrometers could analyze dust and plasma composition, revealing the interstellar medium’s origins. Next-generation plasma wave detectors, building on Voyager’s legacy, could probe subtle magnetic interactions, while UV and X-ray telescopes might detect emissions missed by current probes. Developing these by 2030, leveraging advancements in miniaturization and AI-driven data processing, is feasible with current technology trends.
4. Extend Observations with New Horizons and Beyond New Horizons, post its 2015 Pluto and 2019 Arrokoth flybys, is poised to cross the heliopause by the early 2030s, offering a third data point. Ensuring its RTG sustains key instruments—like the Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) and dust counter—requires NASA to optimize power management now. Concurrently, planning a follow-on mission by 2035, perhaps launched in the late 2020s, could target a different heliospheric quadrant, filling spatial gaps left by Voyager and New Horizons.
5. Integrate Ground- and Space-Based Observations While Voyagers provide direct data, indirect methods can enhance our picture. Expanding IBEX-like missions (e.g., IMAP) to monitor energetic neutral atoms and cosmic rays from Earth orbit, paired with ground-based radio telescopes like the Square Kilometre Array (SKA), due online by 2030, could trace interstellar influences on the heliosphere. By 2028, integrating these datasets with machine learning could model the heliosphere’s evolution, bridging Voyager’s temporal constraints.
Conclusion
The Voyager missions have illuminated the heliosphere’s complexity, from its shifting boundaries to its interstellar interface, but their scope is inherently limited by design and age. As they fade—potentially silent by 2030, per NASA projections—unanswered questions about the heliosphere’s form, the interstellar medium’s nature, and long-term solar interactions persist. In the near future, a concerted effort to launch advanced probes like Interstellar Probe, deploy multi-point networks, and leverage cutting-edge instruments and observatories will be essential. By 2035, these steps could transform our cosmic perspective, honoring Voyager’s trailblazing path while charting the uncharted frontiers they could not reach.
References 1. Bartels, Meghan. "The Voyager Spacecraft are Overturning Everything We Thought We Knew about the Boundary of Interstellar Space." Scientific American, April 2025, pp. 63-69. 2. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Voyager Mission Status." Accessed April 2, 2025. https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/. 3. Stone, E. C., et al. "Voyager 1 Observes Low-Energy Galactic Cosmic Rays in a Region Depleted of Heliospheric Ions." Science, vol. 341, no. 6142, 2013, pp. 150-153. DOI: 10.1126/science.1239989. 4. Krimigis, S. M., et al. "Zero Outward Flow of Solar Wind at the Heliospheric Termination Shock: Voyager 2 Observations." Nature Astronomy, vol. 3, 2019, pp. 997-1002. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0921-8. 5. McComas, D. J., et al. "IBEX’s Enigmatic Ribbon in the Heliosphere and Its Origins." The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 885, no. 1, 2019, p. 65. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a47. 6. Opher, M., et al. "A Small and Round Heliosphere Suggested by Magnetohydrodynamic Modeling of Pick-up Ions." Nature Astronomy, vol. 4, 2020, pp. 199-204. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0929-0. 7. NASA. "Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP) Mission Overview." Accessed April 2, 2025. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/imap/. 8. Cummings, A. C., et al. "Voyager 1 and 2 Power and Thermal Status Updates." Space Science Reviews, vol. 219, 2023, p. 12. DOI: 10.1007/s11214-023-00945-7. 9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. "Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s." 2022 Decadal Survey, 2021. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26141/. 10. Zhang, M., et al. "China’s Interstellar Mission: Plans for a Heliospheric Probe by 2049." Chinese Journal of Space Science, vol. 43, 2023, pp. 15-22. 11. Space.com Staff. "Voyager 1 Suffers Communications Glitch, NASA Works to Restore Contact." Space.com, March 15, 2025. https://www.space.com/voyager-1-comms-glitch-2025. 12. SKA Observatory. "Square Kilometre Array: Science Goals and Timeline." Accessed April 2, 2025. https://www.skao.int/en/science.
.jpg)
