At http://phys.org/print373795118.html … some really nice images of the surface of the Moon taken by the Chinese rover Yutu and the Chang'e lander.
At www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160129090451.htm … we are told there was a head on collision between earth and another planet, which gave rise to the Moon. The article is in the journal Science 2016:351(6272):493DOI:10.1126/science.aad0525
At http://phys.org/print373788472.html … a discussion of the innards of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko (from data collected by the Rosetta Mission). Apparently, the comet is not solid we are told and 'comets are known to be a mixture of dust and ice …'. The post is derived from M Patzold et al 'A homogenous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko from its gravity field' in Nature (2016) DOI: 10.1038/nature16535
At http://phys.org/print373828239.html … an altogether more interesting press release as it is based on fact not theory. The Swedes have developed a 'green propellant' that smells like glass (window) cleaner, looks like a nice dry white wine – but is powerful enough to propel a satellite. We now have 'green' spacecraft fuel and this is a considerable breakthrough as currently the propellant in common use is hydrazine. This is highly toxic and requires a great deal of protection for the handler, elaborate suits that cover them from head to toe. The green propellant is user friendly – or reasonably so. It is interesting to note NASAs careful test of this new fuel with the climate people employed by NASA. They are fully global warming in outlook and seem to treat actual evidence in a lighter manner than the space side of NASA. The difference in approach is remarkable.