Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Publishers
Posted
9 Min Read

Behind the Scenes of a NASA ‘Moonwalk’ in the Arizona Desert

In the foreground, two people stand facing each other. Their arms are extended toward each other, and their fists meet at the knuckles. They are wearing big, bulky suits with lots of straps. They’re also wearing helmets and large, rectangular backpacks. The pair is standing in a large field with a mountain range in the background.
NASA astronauts Kate Rubins (left) and Andre Douglas.
Credits:
NASA/Josh Valcarcel 

NASA astronauts Kate Rubins and Andre Douglas recently performed four moonwalk simulations to help NASA prepare for its Artemis III mission. Due to launch in September 2026, Artemis III will land two, yet-to-be-selected, astronauts at the Moon’s South Pole for the first time.

Traveling to space requires immense preparation, not just for the astronauts, but for the hundreds of people who work in the background. That’s why Earth-based simulations are key. They allow spacesuit and tool designers to see their designs in action. Flight controllers who monitor spacecraft systems and the crew’s activities get to practice catching early signs of technical issues or threats to astronaut safety. And scientists use simulations to practice making geologic observations from afar through descriptions from astronauts.

Between May 13 and May 22, 2024, Rubins and Douglas trudged through northern Arizona’s San Francisco Volcanic Field, a geologically Moon-like destination shaped by millions of years of volcanic eruptions. There, they made observations of the soil and rocks around them and collected samples. After the moonwalks, the astronauts tested technology that could be used on Artemis missions, including a heads-up display that uses augmented reality to help with navigation, and lighting beacons that could help guide a crew back to a lunar lander.

Dozens of engineers and scientists came along with Rubins and Douglas. Some were in the field alongside the crew. Others joined remotely from a mock mission control center at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston in a more realistic imitation of what it’ll take to work with a crew that’s some 240,000 miles away on the lunar surface.  

Here’s a look behind the scenes of a “moonwalk.”

My experience in Arizona was incredible! I worked with several teams, explored an exotic landscape, and got a taste of what it’s like to be on a mission with a crew. 

Andre Douglas

Andre Douglas

NASA Astronaut

Practice to Prepare

Two people sit side-by-side at a table inside a large tent. They’re wearing sun hats and t-shirts. The person on the left is talking and holding a pen in their left hand, while the person on the right is looking at them sideways and smiling. On the table in front of the pair is a jumble of papers, wires, an iPad and mobile phone propped up on stands, and large water bottles.

In this May 13, 2024, photo, Rubins (left), a molecular biologist who has done several expeditions to the space station, and Douglas, an engineer and member of the 2021 astronaut class, prepared for moonwalk rehearsals.  

In the foreground are two people standing side by side about four feet apart. The person on the left is leaning over a cart with large rubber wheels; the person, with their right side facing the camera is wearing large gloves, a t-shirt, a sun hat, and a large, rectangular backpack with antennas stretching out from the top. The person on the right, standing erect, is dressed similarly and has their back to the camera. The two are standing in a large, tan-colored field with small shrubs and mountains in the background. Framed between the two people is a brown and white cow, looking straight toward the camera. It is standing toward the background, between the people and the mountain range.

During the May 14 moonwalk, above, Rubins and Douglas worked to stay in the simulation mindset while a cow looked on. They wore backpacks loaded with equipment for lighting, communication, cameras, and power for those devices.

There are, of course, no cows on the Moon. But there is a region, called Marius Hills, that geologically resembles this Arizona volcanic field. Like the Arizona site, Marius Hills was shaped by ancient volcanic eruptions, so the composition of rocks at the two locations is similar.

The Arizona simulation site also resembles the Moon’s south polar region in the subtle changes in the size, abundance, and groupings of rocks that can be found there. Noting such faint differences in rocks on the Moon will help reveal the history of asteroid collisions, volcanic activity, and other events that shaped not only the Moon, but also Earth and the rest of our solar system.

“So this ‘landing site’ was a good analog for the types of small changes in regolith astronauts will look for at the lunar South Pole,” said Lauren Edgar, a geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz., who co-led the science team for the simulation.

To the delight of Edgar and her colleagues, Rubins and Douglas correctly identified faint differences in the Arizona rocks. But, despite their accomplishment, the day’s moonwalk had to be cut short due to strong winds. As with cows, there’s no wind on the mostly airless Moon. 

Science at the Table

jsc2024e034645.jpg?w=2048

Earth and planetary scientists at NASA Johnson followed the moonwalks via a live video and audio feed broadcast in the Science Evaluation Room, pictured above. These experts developed detailed plans for each simulated moonwalk and provided geology expertise to mission control.

Everyone in the room had a role. One person communicated information between the science team and the flight control team. Others monitored the crew’s science tasks to ensure the astronauts stayed on track.

A small group analyzed images of rocks, soil, and outcrops sent back by the crew on the ground in Arizona. The information they gleaned helped determine whether the crew’s science tasks for each traverse needed to change.

The decision to update tasks or not was made by a small group of experts from NASA and other institutions. Known as the “scrum,” this group of scientists, who are sitting around the table in the picture above, represented disciplines such as volcanology and mineralogy.

They evaluated the information coming in from the crew and analyses from the science team to quickly decide whether to change the day’s science tasks because of an unplanned discovery. Serving at the scrum table was a high-pressure job, as updating the plan to spend more time at one intriguing site, for instance, could mean giving up time at another.

The image shows a closeup of a map that’s pinkish in color with small, shaded areas. There are labels on the map, such as “krm” and “pu,” and dotted lines, small dots and squares and stars that mark locations on the map. A miniature lander model, smaller than the palm of the hand, is sitting at a location on the map labeled “Station 7.” Two miniature astronaut figures, one holding a U.S. flag, are standing a few inches to the right of the lander, and to the right of them sits a miniature rover.

The Arizona moonwalks also gave scientists an opportunity to test their skills at making geologic maps using data from spacecraft orbiting many miles above the surface. Such maps will identify scientifically valuable rocks and landforms at the South Pole to help NASA pick South Pole landing sites that have the most scientific value.

Scientists will use data from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to map the geology around the Artemis III landing site on the Moon. But to map the Arizona volcanic field, they relied on Earth satellite data. Then, to test whether their Arizona maps were accurate, a couple of scientists compared the crew’s locations along their traverses — self-reported based on the land features around them — to the geologic features identified on the maps.

Two people are sitting in a large vehicle with no roof, strapped into large, rectangular seats. The vehicle is sitting on brown soil. Spruce trees are in the background. The two people are looking at a box in front of them. Antennas stretch up from different parts of the vehicle.
Apollo 17 astronauts Eugene A. Cernan, wearing a green and yellow cap, and Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, during geology training at Cinder Lake Crater Field in Flagstaff, Ariz. In this 1972 image the NASA astronauts are driving a geologic rover, or “Grover,” which was a training replica of the roving vehicle they later drove on the Moon.

In the months leading up to the Arizona moonwalks, scientists taught Rubin and Douglas about geology, a discipline that’s key to deciphering the history of planets and moons. Geology training has been commonplace since the Apollo era of the 1960s and early ’70s. In fact, Apollo astronauts also trained in Arizona. These pioneer explorers spent hundreds of hours in the classroom and in the field learning geology. Artemis astronauts will have similarly intensive training. 

Operating in Moon-Like Conditions 

jsc2024e035656orig.jpg?w=2048

In the image above, Douglas stands to Rubins’ left reviewing procedures, while Rubins surveys instruments on the cart. Both are wearing 70-pound mockup planetary spacesuits that make moving, kneeling and grasping difficult, similar to how it will feel to do these activities on the Moon.

A NASA team member, not visible behind the cart in the foreground, is shining a spotlight toward the astronauts during a one-and-a-half-hour nighttime moonwalk simulation on May 16. The spotlight was used to imitate the lighting conditions of the Moon’s south polar region, where the Sun doesn’t rise and set as it does on Earth. Instead, it just moves across the horizon, skimming the surface like a flashlight lying on a table.

This visualization shows the unusual motions of Earth and the Sun as viewed from the South Pole of the Moon. Credit: NASA/Ernie Wright

The position of the Sun at the Moon has to do with the Moon’s 1.5-degree tilt on its axis. This slight tilt means neither of the Moon’s northern or southern hemispheres tips noticeably toward or away from the Sun throughout the year. In contrast, Earth’s 23.5-degree tilt allows the northern and southern hemispheres to lean closer (summer) or farther (winter) from the Sun depending on the time of year. Thus, the Sun appears higher in the sky during summer days than it does during winter days.

Compared to the daytime moonwalks, when the astronauts could easily see and describe the conditions around them, the crew was relatively quiet during the night expedition. With their small helmet lights, Rubins and Douglas could see just the area around their feet. But the duo tested supplemental portable lights and reported a big improvement in visibility of up to 20 feet around themselves.

Night simulations show us how tough it is for the astronauts to navigate in the dark. It’s pretty eye opening.

Cherie achilles

Cherie achilles

Mineralogist from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who co-led the simulation science team.

People are sitting in a typical, brightly lit office-building room. Colorful posters line the walls. A large screen is in the top right corner, showing two side-by-side images of shapes that are hard to make out. People are sitting around tables, some are kneeling, looking either at the large screen or at the small computer screens in front of them.

The Science Evaluation Room during the nighttime moonwalk simulation on May 16. Scientists sit at their workstations while a screen at the front of the room presents live video and audio of the astronauts in the field.

A person, wearing glasses, a headset, and a bright-colored shirt is in the center of the image, pointing at a computer screen — one of several visible in the image. In the background is another person, in glasses and a dark-colored polo shirt, looking down at this laptop screen. In the bottom right corner of the image a third person, wearing glasses, is visible from the side. That person is resting his head on his left fist, looking in the direction of the pointing hand.

Engineers pictured above, in Houston’s mock mission control area, tested custom-designed software for managing moonwalks. One program automatically catalogs hours of audio and video footage, plus hundreds of pictures, collected during moonwalks. Another helps the team plan moonwalks, keep track of time and tasks, and manage limited life-support supplies such as oxygen. Such tracking and archiving will provide contextual data for generations of scientists and engineers. 

  

It’s important that we make software tools that allow flight controllers and scientists to have flexibility and creativity during moonwalks, while helping keep the crew safe.

Ben Feist

Ben Feist

Software engineer in NASA Johnson’s Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science division, pointing in the image above.

Learning a Common Language 

A person with their right hand on a computer mouse, is sitting at a table with five screens in a semicircle around them. The person, wearing a headset, is turned toward one of the screens with a serious, focused expression on their face. They are sitting in a bright office area, wearing a dark dress shirt and blazer.

The audio stream used by the Houston team to communicate during spacewalks is a dizzying cacophony of voices representing all the engineering and science roles of mission control. A well-trained mission control specialist can block out the noise and focus only on information they need to act on.

One of the goals of the simulations, then, was to train scientists how to do this. “On the science side, we’re the newbies here,” Achilles said.

During the Arizona moonwalks, scientists learned how to communicate their priorities succinctly and clearly to the flight control team, which then talked with the astronauts. If scientists needed to change the traverse plan to return to a site for more pictures, for instance, they had to rationalize the request to the flight director in charge. If the director approved, a designated person communicated the information to the crew. For this simulation, that person was NASA astronaut Jessica Watkins, pictured above, who’s  a geologist by training.  

NASA’s strict communication rules are meant to limit the distractions and hazards to astronauts during physically and intellectually demanding spacewalks. 

Coming Up Next 

In the weeks after the May moonwalk simulations, flight controllers and scientists have been debriefing and documenting their experiences. Next, they will revisit details like the design of the Science Evaluation Room. They’ll reconsider the roles and responsibilities of each team member and explore new tools or software upgrades to make their jobs more efficient. And at future simulations, still in the planning stages, they’ll do it all again, and again, and again, all to ensure that the real Artemis moonwalks — humanity’s first steps on the lunar surface in more than 50 years — will be perfectly choreographed.  

View More Images from the Recent Moonwalk Simulations

By Lonnie Shekhtman
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

Keep Exploring

Discover More Topics From NASA

View the full article

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By NASA
      3 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
      GRX-810 is a new metal alloy developed by NASA for 3D printing parts that can withstand the extreme temperatures of rocket engines, allowing affordable printing of high-heat parts.NASA Until now, additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, of engine components was limited by the lack of affordable metal alloys that could withstand the extreme temperatures of spaceflight. Expensive metal alloys were the only option for 3D printing engine parts until NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, developed the GRX-810 alloy.

      The primary metals in the GRX-810 alloy include nickel, cobalt, and chromium. A ceramic oxide coating on the powdered metal particles increases its heat resistance and improves performance. Known as oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) alloys, these powders were challenging to manufacture at a reasonable cost when the project started. 

      However, the advanced dispersion coating technique developed at Glenn employs resonant acoustic mixing. Rapid vibration is applied to a container filled with the metal powder and nano-oxide particles. The vibration evenly coats each metal particle with the oxide, making them inseparable. Even if a manufactured part is ground down to powder and reused, the next component will have the qualities of ODS.

      The benefits over common alloys are significant – GRX-10 could last up to a year at 2,000°F under stress loads that would crack any other affordable alloy within hours. Additionally, 3D printing parts using GRX-810 enables more complex shapes compared to metal parts manufactured with traditional methods.

      Elementum 3D, an Erie, Colorado-based company, produces GRX-810 for customers in quantities ranging from small batches to over a ton. The company has a co-exclusive license for the NASA-patented alloy and manufacturing process and continues to work with the agency under a Space Act Agreement to improve the material.

      “A material under stress or a heavy load at high temperature can start to deform and stretch almost like taffy,” said Jeremy Iten, chief technical officer with Elementum 3D. “Initial tests done on the large-scale production of our GRX-810 alloy showed a lifespan that’s twice as long as the small-batch material initially produced, and those were already fantastic.”

      Commercial space and other industries, including aviation, are testing GRX-810 for additional applications. For example, one Elementum 3D customer, Vectoflow, is testing a GRX-810 flow sensor. Flow sensors monitor the speed of gases flowing through a turbine, helping engineers optimize engine performance. However, these sensors can burn out in minutes due to extreme temperatures. Using GRX-810 flow sensors could improve airplane fuel efficiency, reduce emissions and hardware replacements.

      Working hand-in-hand with industry, NASA is driving technology developments that are mutually beneficial to the agency and America’s space economy. Learn more: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/
      Read More Share
      Details
      Last Updated Aug 15, 2025 Related Terms
      Technology Transfer & Spinoffs Glenn Research Center Spinoffs Technology Transfer Explore More
      2 min read NASA Seeks Industry Feedback on Fission Surface Power
      Article 22 hours ago 2 min read NASA Glenn Earns Commercial Invention of the Year Award
      Article 1 day ago 2 min read NASA Glenn Shoots for the Stars During WNBA All-Star Weekend
      Article 2 days ago Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics
      Missions
      Humans in Space
      Glenn Research Center
      3D-Printed Habitat Challenge
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      3 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)


      Human-rating is a critical certification process that validates the safety, reliability, and suitability of space systems—including orbiters, launch vehicles, rovers, spacesuits, habitats, and other crewed elements—for human use and interaction. This process ensures that systems are designed not only to protect human life but also to accommodate human needs and effectively integrate human capabilities. Human-rating requires that systems can tolerate failures, provide life-sustaining environments, and offer the crew sufficient control and situational awareness. NASA’s standards, such as a maximum allowable probability of loss of crew of 1 in 500 for ascent or descent, reflect the agency’s commitment to minimizing risk in human spaceflight.
      Over the decades, the concept of human-rating has evolved significantly. Early efforts focused primarily on basic crew survival and redundancy in critical systems. However, as missions became more complex and extended in duration, the scope of human-rating expanded to include human performance, health management, and the psychological and physiological demands of space travel. Today, human-rating is a multidisciplinary effort that integrates engineering, medical, and operational expertise to ensure that systems are not only survivable but also support optimal human function in extreme environments.
      Modern human-rating standards—such as NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.2C, NASA-STD-8719.29 (Technical Requirements for Human-Rating), and NASA-STD-3001 (Human System Standards)—form the foundation of NASA’s approach. These documents emphasize risk-informed design, fault tolerance, human factors engineering, and the ability to recover from hazardous situations. They also provide detailed guidance on system safety, crew control interfaces, abort capabilities, and environmental health requirements. Together, they ensure that human spaceflight systems are designed to accommodate, utilize, and protect the crew throughout all mission phases.
      The human-rating certification process is rigorous and iterative. It involves extensive testing, validation, and verification of system performance, including simulations, flight tests, and integrated safety analyses. Certification also requires continuous monitoring, configuration control, and maintenance to ensure that systems remain in their certified state throughout their operational life. Importantly, human-rating is not just a checklist of technical requirements—it represents a cultural commitment to crew safety. It fosters a mindset in which every team member, from design engineers to mission operators, shares responsibility for protecting human life.
      To support program and project teams in applying these standards, NASA has conducted cross-reviews of documents like NASA-STD-3001 in relation to NASA-STD-8719.29. These assessments help identify relevant human health and performance requirements that should be considered during system design and development. While not a substitute for detailed applicability assessments, such reviews provide valuable guidance for integrating human-rating principles into mission planning and vehicle architecture.
      NASA/Sydney Bergen-Hill Read More About Human Rating Share
      Details
      Last Updated Aug 15, 2025 Related Terms
      General Artemis Commercial Space Humans in Space International Space Station (ISS) Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) Spacesuits Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics
      Human Spaceflight Standards
      The Human Spaceflight & Aviation Standards Team continually works with programs to provide the best standards and implementation documentation to…
      Technical Briefs
      Technical Briefs are available for standards that offer technical data, background, and application notes for vehicle developers and medical professionals.…
      Aerospace Medical Certification Standard
      This NASA Technical Standard provides medical requirements and clinical procedures designed to ensure crew health and safety and occupational longevity…
      Human Integration Design Handbook
      A companion document to NASA-STD-3001 Volume 2 is the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). The HIDH is a compendium of…
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      3 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
      NASA now is accepting proposals from student teams for a contest to design, build, and test rovers for Moon and Mars exploration through Sept. 15.
      Known as the Human Exploration Rover Challenge, student rovers should be capable of traversing a course while completing mission tasks. The challenge handbook has guidelines for remote-controlled and human-powered divisions.
      The cover of the HERC 2026 handbook, which is now available online. “Last year, we saw a lot of success with the debut of our remote-controlled division and the addition of middle school teams,” said Vemitra Alexander, the activity lead for the challenge at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “We’re looking forward to building on both our remote-controlled and human-powered divisions with new challenges for the students, including rover automation.” 
      This year’s mission mimics future Artemis missions to the lunar surface. Teams are challenged to test samples of soil, water, and air from sites along a half-mile course that includes a simulated field of asteroid debris, boulders, erosion ruts, crevasses, and an ancient streambed. Human-powered rover teams will play the role of two astronauts in a lunar terrain vehicle and must use a custom-built task tool to manually collect samples needed for testing. Remote-controlled rover teams will act as a pressurized rover, and the rover itself will contain the tools necessary to collect and test samples onboard. 
      “NASA’s Human Exploration Rover Challenge creates opportunities for students to develop the skills they need to be successful STEM professionals,” said Alexander. “This challenge will help students see themselves in the mission and give them the hands-on experience needed to advance technology and become the workforce of tomorrow.” 
      Seventy-five teams comprised of more than 500 students participated in the agency’s 31st rover challenge in 2025. Participants represented 35 colleges and universities, 38 high schools, and two middle schools, across 20 states, Puerto Rico, and 16 nations around the world.
      The 32nd annual competition will culminate with an in-person event April 9-11, 2026, at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center near NASA Marshall.
      The rover challenge is one of NASA’s Artemis Student Challenges, reflecting the goals of the Artemis campaign, which seeks to explore the Moon for scientific discovery, technology advancement, and to learn how to live and work on another world as we prepare for human missions to Mars. NASA uses such challenges to encourage students to pursue degrees and careers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 
      Since its inception in 1994, more than 15,000 students have participated in the rover challenge – with many former students now working at NASA or within the aerospace industry.    
      To learn more about HERC, visit: 
      https://www.nasa.gov/roverchallenge/
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Aug 15, 2025 EditorBeth RidgewayLocationMarshall Space Flight Center Related Terms
      Marshall Space Flight Center Explore More
      4 min read NASA IXPE’s ‘Heartbeat Black Hole’ Measurements Challenge Current Theories
      Article 3 days ago 6 min read NASA’s Hubble, Chandra Spot Rare Type of Black Hole Eating a Star
      NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory have teamed up to identify a…
      Article 3 weeks ago 4 min read Stay Cool: NASA Tests Innovative Technique for Super Cold Fuel Storage
      Article 4 weeks ago Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics
      Missions
      Humans in Space
      Climate Change
      Solar System
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      Dr. Steven “Steve” Platnick stepped down from his role at NASA on August 8, 2025, after more than three decades of public service. Steve began his career at NASA as a physical scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center in 2002. He moved to the Earth Science Division in 2009, where he has served in various senior management roles, including as the Earth Observing System (EOS) Senior Project Scientist. In this role, he led the EOS Project Science Office and continued periodic meetings of the EOS Project Scientists, initiated by Michael King during his tenure. Steve expanded these meetings to include representatives of non-EOS Earth observing missions and representatives from Earth Science Mission Operations (ESMO). In addition, Steve was named Deputy Director for Atmospheres in the Earth Science Division in January 2015 and served in this position until July 2024.
      Dr. Steve Platnick Image credit: NASA During his time at NASA, Steve played an integral role in the development, sustainability, and advancement of NASA’s Earth Observing System platforms. From January 2003 – February 2010, Steve served as Deputy Project Scientist for Aqua. In this role, he applied his expertise in theoretical and experimental studies of satellite, aircraft, and ground-based cloud remote sensing to improve algorithms to benefit the data gathered from remote observing systems.
      Taking the Lead to Improve Algorithms
      Steve was actively involved in the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Science Team, serving as the MODIS Atmosphere Team Lead. Steve helped advance several key components of the MODIS instrument, which flies on NASA’s Terra and Aqua platforms. He led a team that enhanced, maintained, and evaluated MODIS algorithms that support the Level-2 (L2) Cloud Optical/Microphysical Properties components (e.g., COD06 and MYD06) for MODIS on Terra and Aqua. The algorithms were designed to retrieve thermodynamic phase, optical thickness, effective particle radius, and water path for liquid and ice clouds. The team’s work also contributes to L3 products that address cloud mask, aerosols, clouds, and clear sky radiance for data within  1° grids over one-day, eight-day, and one-month repeat cycles. Under Steve’s leadership, the team also developed L2 products (e.g., MODATML2 and MYDATML2) that include essential atmosphere datasets of samples collected at 5–10 km (3–6 mi) that is consistent with L3 products to ease storage requirements of core atmospheric data.
      Steve is also a member of the Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) Atmosphere Team, working on operational cloud optical and microphysical products. In this role, he contributed to algorithm development and refinement for the Cloud Product. In particular, he helped address a critical gap in the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) spectral channel, which was not designed to collect information for carbon dioxide (CO2) slicing and water vapor data in the same way as MODIS. Steve and his colleagues developed a suite of L2 algorithms for the spectral channels that were common to both MODIS and VIIRS to address cloud mask and cloud optical/microphysical properties. Through these efforts, the project has established a continuous cloud data record gathered from both instruments from 2017 to the present.
      Steve also participated in numerous other working groups during the past 30 years. He participated in the Global Energy and Water Exchanges (GEWEX) Cloud Assessment Working Group (2008–present), Arctic Radiation-Cloud-Aerosol-Surface Interaction Experiment (ARCSIX) Science Team (2023–present), ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS (ORACLES) Earth–Venture Suborbital (EVS)-2 Science Team (2014–2023), Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) Science Team (2014–present), Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) Science Team (2014–2023), PACE Science Definition Team, Deputy Chair (2011–2012), Glory Science Team (2010–2014) NASA Observations for Modeling Intercomparison Studies (obs4MIPs) Working Group (2011), Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) Science Definition Team (2009–2011), and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) R-series Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Cloud Team (2005–2009).
      Steve has also participated in numerous major airborne field campaigns in various roles, including: GSFC Lidar Observation and Validation Experiment (GLOVE, 2025), PACE Postlaunch Airborne eXperiment (PAX, 2024), the Westcoast & Heartland Hyperspectral Microwave Sensor Intensive Experiment (WH2yMSIE, 2024), ORACLES Science Team (2015–2019), Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS) Science Team (2011–2015), Tropical Composition, Cloud and Climate Coupling (TC4) Management Team (2007), Cirrus Regional Study of Tropical Anvils and Cirrus Layers – Florida Area Cirrus Experiment (CRYSTAL-FACE) Science Management Team (2002), Southern Africa Fire-Atmosphere Research Initiative (SAFARI, 2000), First ISCCP Regional Experiment (FIRE) Arctic Cloud Experiment (ACE) (1998), Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST, 1994), and ACE (1992).
      Supporting Earth Science Communications
      Through his senior leadership roles within ESD Steve has been supportive of the activities of NASA’s Science Support Office (SSO). He has participated in many NASA Science exhibits at both national and international scientific conferences, including serving as a Hyperwall presenter numerous times. He has met with task leaders frequently and has advocated on behalf of the SSO to management at NASA Headquarters, GSFC, and Global Sciences & Technology Inc.
      For The Earth Observer newsletter publication team in particular, Steve replaced Michael King as Acting EOS Senior Project Scientist in June 2008, taking over the authorship of “The Editor’s Corner” beginning with the May–June 2008 issue [Volume 20, Issue 3]. The Acting label was removed beginning with the January–February 2010 issue [Volume 22, Issue 1]. Steve has been a champion of continuing to retain a historical record of NASA meetings to maintain a chronology of advances made by different groups within the NASA Earth Science community. He was supportive of the Executive Editor’s efforts to create a series called “Perspectives on EOS,” which ran from 2008–2011 and told the stories of the early years of the EOS Program from the point of view of those who lived them. He also supported the development of articles to commemorate the 25th and 30th anniversary of The Earth Observer. Later, Steve helped guide the transition of the newsletterfrom a print publication – the November–December 2022 issue was the last printed issue – to fully online by July 2024, a few months after the publication’s 35th anniversary. The Earth Observer team will miss Steve’s keen insight, historical perspective, and encouragement that he has shown through his leadership for the past 85 issues of print and online publications.
      A Career Recognized through Awards and Honors
      Throughout his career, Steve has amassed numerous honors, including the Robert H. Goddard Award for Science: MODIS/VIIRS Cloud Products Science Team (2024) and the William Nordberg Memorial Award for Earth Science in 2023. He received the Verner E. Suomi Award from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in 2016 and was named an AMS Fellow that same year.
      Steve has received numerous NASA Group Achievement Awards, including for the Cloud, Aerosol and Monsoon Processes Philippines Experiment (CAMP2Ex) Field Campaign Team (2020), Fire Influence of Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) Field Campaign Team (2020), ORACLES Field Campaign Team (2019), obs4MIPs Working Group (2015), SEAC4RS Field Campaign Team (2015), Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) Instrument Recovery Team (2013), Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) Mission Concept Team (2012), Earth Science Constellation Red Team (2011), Science Mission Directorate ARRA Team (2011), TC4 Team (2009), MODIS Science Data Support Team (2007), Aqua Mission Team (2003), CRYSTAL-FACE Science Team (2003), and SAFARI 2000 International Leadership Team (2002).
      Steve received two NASA Agency Honor Awards – the Exceptional Service Medal in 2015 and the Exceptional Achievement Medal in 2008. He was also part of the NASA Agency Team Excellence Award in 2017 for his work with the Satellite Needs Assessment Team. The Laboratory for Atmospheres honored him with the Best Senior Author Publication Award in 2001 and the Scientific Research Peer Award in 2005.
      Steve received his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in electrical engineering from Duke University and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively. He earned a Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Arizona. He began his career at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (JCET) at University of Maryland Baltimore County in 1996 as a research associate professor. He held this appointment until 2002. Steve has published more than 150 scholarly articles.
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      5 min read
      NASA’s Apollo Samples, LRO Help Scientists Predict Moonquakes
      This mosaic of the Taurus-Littrow valley was made using images from the Narrow Angle Cameras onboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The orbiter has been circling and studying the Moon since 2009. The ancient-lava-filled valley is cut by the Lee-Lincoln thrust fault, visible as a sinuous, white line extending from South Massif (mountain in the bottom left corner) to North Massif (mountain in the top center) where the fault abruptly changes direction and cuts along the slope of North Massif. The Lee-Lincoln fault has been the source of multiple strong moonquakes causing landslides and boulder falls on both North and South massifs. The approximate location of the Apollo 17 landing site is indicated to the right of the fault with a white “x”. NASA/ASU/Smithsonian As NASA prepares to send astronauts to the surface of the Moon’s south polar region for the first time ever during the Artemis III mission, scientists are working on methods to determine the frequency of moonquakes along active faults there.
      Faults are cracks in the Moon’s crust that indicate that the Moon is slowly shrinking as its interior cools over time. The contraction from shrinking causes the faults to move suddenly, which generates quakes. Between 1969 and 1977, a network of seismometers deployed by Apollo astronauts on the Moon’s surface recorded thousands of vibrations from moonquakes.
      Moonquakes are rare, with the most powerful ones, about magnitude 5.0, occurring near the surface. These types of quakes are much weaker than powerful quakes on Earth (magnitude 7.0 or higher), posing little risk to astronauts during a mission lasting just a few days. But their effects on longer-term lunar surface assets could be significant. Unlike an earthquake that lasts for tens of seconds to minutes, a moonquake can last for hours, enough time to damage or tip over structures, destabilize launch vehicles on the surface, or interrupt surface operations.
      “The hazard probability goes way up depending on how close your infrastructure is to an active fault,” said Thomas Watters, senior scientist emeritus at the Smithsonian’s National Air & Space Museum in Washington.
      Watters is a long-time researcher of lunar geology and a co-investigator on NASA’s LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) camera. Recently, he and Nicholas Schmerr, a planetary seismologist at the University of Maryland in College Park, developed a new method for estimating the magnitude of seismic shaking by analyzing evidence of dislodged boulders and landslides in an area, as the scientists reported on July 30 in the journal Science Advances. Studies like these can help NASA plan lunar surface assets in safer locations.
      Unlike an earthquake that lasts for tens of seconds to minutes, a moonquake can last for hours, enough time to damage or tip over structures, destabilize launch vehicles on the surface, or interrupt surface operations.


      There are thousands of faults across the Moon that may still be active and producing quakes. Watters and his team have identified these faults by analyzing data from LRO, which has been circling the Moon since 2009, mapping the surface and taking pictures, providing unprecedented detail of features like faults, boulders, and landslides.
      For this study, Watters and Schmerr chose to analyze surface changes from quakes generated by the Lee-Lincoln fault in the Taurus-Littrow valley. NASA’s Apollo 17 astronauts, who landed about 4 miles west of the fault on Dec. 11, 1972, explored the area around the fault during their mission.
      By studying boulder falls and a landslide likely dislodged by ground shaking near Lee Lincoln, Watters and Schmerr estimated that a magnitude 3.0 moonquake — similar to a relatively minor earthquake — occurs along the Lee Lincoln fault about every 5.6 million years.
      “One of the things we’re learning from the Lee-Lincoln fault is that many similar faults have likely had multiple quakes spread out over millions of years,” Schmerr said. “This means that they are potentially still active today and may keep generating more moonquakes in the future.”
      The authors chose to study the Lee-Lincoln fault because it offered a unique advantage: Apollo 17 astronauts brought back samples of boulders from the area. By studying these samples in labs, scientists were able to measure changes in the boulders’ chemistry caused by exposure to cosmic radiation over time (the boulder surface is freshly exposed after breaking off a larger rock that would have otherwise shielded it).
      This cosmic radiation exposure information helped the researchers determine how long the boulders had been sitting in their current locations, which in turn helped inform the estimate of possible timing and frequency of quakes along the Lee-Lincoln fault.
      This 1972 image shows Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt sampling a boulder at the base of North Massif in the Taurus-Littrow valley on the Moon. This large boulder is believed to have been dislodged by a strong moonquake that occurred about 28.5 million years ago. The source of the quake was likely a seismic event along the Lee-Lincoln fault. The picture was taken by astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 17 commander. NASA/JSC/ASU Apollo 17 astronauts investigated the boulders at the bases of two mountains in the valley. The tracks left behind indicated that the boulders may have rolled downhill after being shaken loose during a moonquake on the fault. Using the size of each boulder, Watters and Schmerr estimated how hard the ground shaking would have been and the magnitude of the quake that would have caused the boulders to break free.
      The team also estimated the seismic shaking and quake magnitude that would be needed to trigger the large landslide that sent material rushing across the valley floor, suggesting that this incident caused the rupture event that formed the Lee-Lincoln fault.
      A computer simulation depicting the seismic waves emanating from a shallow moonquake on the Lee-Lincoln fault in the Taurus-Littrow valley on the Moon. The label “A17” marks the Apollo 17 landing site. The audio represents a moonquake that was recorded by a seismometer placed on the surface by astronauts. The seismic signal is converted into sound. Both audio and video are sped up to play 10 times faster than normal. The background image is a globe mosaic image from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter’s Wide-Angle Camera. Red and blue are positive (upward ground motion) and negative (downward ground motion) polarities of the wave. Nicholas Schmerr Taking all these factors into account, Watters and Schmerr estimated that the chances that a quake would have shaken the Taurus-Littrow valley on any given day while the Apollo 17 astronauts were there are 1 in 20 million, the authors noted.
      Their findings from the Lee-Lincoln fault are just the beginning. Watters and Schmerr now plan to use their new technique to analyze quake frequency at faults in the Moon’s south polar region, where NASA plans to explore.
      NASA also is planning to send more seismometers to the Moon. First, the Farside Seismic Suite will deliver two sensitive seismometers to Schrödinger basin on the far side of the Moon onboard a lunar lander as part of NASA’s CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) initiative. Additionally, NASA is developing a payload, called the Lunar Environment Monitoring Station, for potential flight on NASA’s Artemis III mission to the South Pole region. Co-led by Schmerr, the payload will assess seismic risks for future human and robotic missions to the region.

      Read More: What Are Moonquakes?


      Read More: Moonquakes and Faults Near Lunar South Pole

      For more information on NASA’s LRO, visit:

      Media Contacts:
      Karen Fox / Molly Wasser
      Headquarters, Washington
      202-358-1600 
      karen.c.fox@nasa.gov / molly.l.wasser@nasa.gov
      Lonnie Shekhtman
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
      lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov
      About the Author
      Lonnie Shekhtman

      Share








      Details
      Last Updated Aug 14, 2025 Related Terms
      Apollo Apollo 17 Artemis Artemis 3 Artemis Campaign Development Division Earth’s Moon Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Goddard Space Flight Center Humans in Space Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Missions NASA Centers & Facilities NASA Directorates Planetary Geosciences & Geophysics Planetary Science Planetary Science Division Science & Research Science Mission Directorate The Solar System Explore More
      4 min read Compton J. Tucker Retires from NASA and is Named NAS Fellow


      Article


      21 hours ago
      5 min read NASA’s Hubble Uncovers Rare White Dwarf Merger Remnant


      Article


      1 day ago
      6 min read Webb Narrows Atmospheric Possibilities for Earth-sized Exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 d


      Article


      1 day ago
      Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
      Missions



      Humans in Space



      Climate Change



      Solar System


      View the full article
  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...