Tag Archives: Russias

What Does Russia’s Failure to Launch a Crewed Mission Mean for the ISS?

Posted on by
Reply

Soyuz spacecraft launched on November 27th

Roscosmos Space Agency, via AP/Alamy

The International Space Station (ISS) might be facing a significant shift towards reduced international collaboration. A critical launch site in Russia, the only one capable of sending humans into orbit, has been heavily damaged and could remain non-operational for up to two years. This situation presents a challenging dilemma for NASA: either shoulder increased expenses and duties or consider decommissioning the ISS.

The Soyuz spacecraft took off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on November 27, transporting two cosmonauts alongside an American astronaut. While all three arrived at the ISS safely, subsequent evaluations of the launch pads revealed that a crucial multi-layered support structure, which is typically retracted during the initial launch phases, had collapsed into the flame trench, sustaining significant damage.

According to reports, repairs might take as long as two years. The Russian space agency, Roscosmos, stated that damage repairs will begin “soon.” The actual extent of the issues remains uncertain.

While the Baikonur Cosmodrome has several launch pads, the damaged one, Site 31, Launch Pad 6, has been operational since 1958 and is the only pad configured for manned missions. David Amato from Imperial College London notes that alternative Russian launch facilities face similar complications that eliminate their viability. The Plesetsk Cosmodrome, located 650 kilometers northeast of St. Petersburg, is positioned too far north for efficient ISS launches, while Vostochny Cosmodrome, near the Chinese border, lacks sufficient infrastructure.

“Many space missions hinge on critical vulnerabilities like this, particularly those that are winding down, such as the ISS,” Amato indicated.

Certainly, the ISS’s operational lifespan has exceeded expectations, having initially been planned for decommissioning in 2020, with several delays thereafter. Current intentions forecast a gradual descent to lower orbits beginning next year, potentially lasting until 2030, after which the crew will dismantle its functional and historic equipment before its final descent toward Earth, expected to fully disintegrate by 2031. Details regarding this process can be found here: “A 400-ton mass of flame is hurtling through the upper atmosphere at orbital velocity.”

Should Russia withdraw, NASA would likely need to further invest in resources and funds to maintain ISS operations—a daunting prospect, especially since the program is nearing its conclusion.

However, Amato casts doubt on whether the U.S. aims to fully terminate the ISS. Without it, both the U.S. and Europe would lack a venue for astronauts, leading to minimal incentives to launch personnel into orbit until longer-term projects like a commercial space station or lunar habitats are established. In contrast, China, America’s principal economic competitor, operates a flourishing space station.

“The optics are not favorable,” Amato noted, “and losing the ISS would be substantial since invaluable research facilitated by this platform would cease to exist.”

The ISS’s inception in the 1990s emerged from a different geopolitical context. Following the Soviet Union’s collapse, there was a mutual interest in launching a collaborative initiative between the former superpowers. The ISS was meticulously crafted to foster not only cooperation but to necessitate it. The Russian orbital segment (ROS), managed by Roscosmos, plays a critical role in trajectory control, while the US orbital segment (USOS), overseen by NASA and collaborated on with European, Japanese, and Canadian space agencies, is solar-powered. Cooperation is essential for both components to function effectively.

However, relationships have soured, and current tensions between the United States and Russia parallel geopolitical strains on Earth, a reality worsened by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Should Russia entirely pull out from the ISS partnership, NASA and its counterparts would face the daunting task of transporting not only astronauts but also crucial supplies like fuel and food—a responsibility previously managed by Russia. NASA would have to address these adjustments. There are more complex inquiries to address, notably regarding the formal management and operation of the Russian section of the ISS. Given recent budget reductions, NASA must scrutinize the feasibility of such an undertaking.

As of this writing, many of Roscosmos’ websites are down, and inquiries regarding the condition of Site 31 have gone unanswered. The European and Canadian space agencies have also not replied to media requests for commentary on the situation with Roscosmos. New Scientist reports.

Nadie Russell, a NASA Public Relations Officer, told New Scientist that the agency would “collaborate closely with our international partners, including Roscosmos, to ensure the safe operation of the ISS and its crew.” Nonetheless, Russell refrained from addressing specific queries about Russia’s ongoing involvement or whether contingency measures are in place should Russia choose to disengage.

Russia has time to evaluate these matters before its next crewed flight to the ISS, slated for July, although it must quickly formulate a strategy to rectify the issues at Baikonur.

Lia Nani Alconcel, a professor at the University of Birmingham in the UK, points out that there are alternatives for crewed travel to the ISS, such as SpaceX’s Dragon capsule, which has successfully transported American astronauts to orbit. Should U.S.-based SpaceX become the sole option for reaching the ISS, it would represent a stark reversal from the early 2000s, when the U.S. was dependent on Russia for crew transport after the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

“Contractual issues may arise regarding launch agreements, but those are legal matters, not engineering challenges,” Alconcel remarked.

This alternative approach could ease some burdens on NASA and alleviate the pressure of urgently needing to establish a new program to compensate for the loss of Russian expertise and capabilities.

“Roscosmos specifically trains astronauts for essential tasks related to the Russian orbital segment, making it a formidable challenge for NASA to independently operate the ISS,” Alconcel explained, highlighting that NASA is pursuing a similar approach on the American segment.

Topics:

  • International Space Station/
  • Russia

Source: www.newscientist.com

US national security at risk as Trump administration fails to effectively address Russia’s cyber threat

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has publicly stated that Russia is not considered a cyber threat to US national security or critical infrastructure, marking a significant departure from previous assessments.

Experts warn that this policy shift could leave the US vulnerable to Russian hacking attacks and may signal warming relations between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Recent incidents indicate that the US no longer views Russia as a cybersecurity threat.

Liesyl Franz, the State Department’s deputy director of international cybersecurity, did not mention Russia as a threat in her recent speech before the UN Working Group on Cybersecurity. This contrasts with statements from European Union and UK officials who highlighted the threat posed by Moscow.

US policy changes regarding cybersecurity have been made behind closed doors, with new directives focusing on China and neglecting to mention Russia.

Anonymous sources familiar with the matter have expressed concern that the US is ignoring the Russian cyber threat, which was previously a primary focus for agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

Reports indicate that CISA officials have been reassigned, raising questions about the US government’s approach to protecting against cyber threats from Russia.

The New York Times reported that CISA officials tasked with safeguarding elections from cyberattacks have also been reassigned.

Concerns have been raised about the shift in US policy towards Russia, as many believe that Russia remains a significant cyber threat to US interests.

The CISA and State Department have not provided comments on these developments.

The change in US policy regarding Russia’s cyber threat is seen as a departure from previous assessments and has raised concerns among experts.

For over a quarter-century, Putin’s Russia has been active in cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, posing a challenge to the international order.

If you have any tips about this story, you can reach out to us at +1 646 886 8761 on Signal

Source: www.theguardian.com

Preparing for Cyberwar: UK’s Response to Russia’s Ability to Shut Off the Lights

Posted on by
Reply

TThe Swedish government’s survival checklist for war would have seemed strange a few decades ago: a sleeping bag, spare battery, one week’s worth of cash, and preserved foods like rice and cereals.

While not explicitly named, Russia looms in the background, evoking memories of the Cold War. The pamphlet “In Case of Crisis or War” has been updated to address the current threat.

The guide now considers the possibility of an “armed attack against Sweden” along with “cyber attacks” and “disinformation campaigns.”

In addition to the traditional threats of nuclear conflict and armed invasion, Europe now faces the 21st-century enemy of cyberwar.

Richard Horne, from the National Cyber Security Center, warns of underestimated risks from countries like Russia and China.

Recent incidents have shown an increase in serious cyber attacks, prompting British ministers to highlight the potential impact of Russia’s cyber operations.

Various European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Finland, are advising citizens to prepare for power outages caused by cyber attacks.

Experts stress the seriousness of Russia’s cyber threat and the need for organizations to plan for cyberattacks on key infrastructure.

Recent evidence points to Russian cyber interference in UK institutions, prompting calls for preparedness against cyber threats.

Amid rising cyber tensions, countries are emphasizing the importance of stockpiling essentials and strengthening cybersecurity measures.

As governments ramp up cybersecurity efforts, individuals are advised to use strong passwords and verify information sources.

The UK government recommends emergency preparedness and offers guidance on dealing with potential cyber threats.

Experts emphasize the resilience of Baltic and Scandinavian countries in the face of potential cyber and armed conflicts.

As the world faces various threats, the importance of preparedness, including stockpiling essential supplies, is underscored.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Meta says Russia’s AI strategy to interfere in US elections is failing

Posted on by
Reply

Russia has been attempting online fraudulent activities using generative artificial intelligence, but according to a Metasecurity report published on Thursday, these efforts have not been successful.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, discovered that AI-powered strategies have only brought minimal benefits in terms of productivity and content generation to malicious actors. Meta was successful in thwarting deceptive influence campaigns.

Meta’s actions against “systematic fraud” on its platform are in response to concerns that generative AI could be employed to mislead or confuse individuals during elections in the U.S. and other nations.


David Agranovich, Meta’s director of security policy, informed reporters that Russia continues to be the primary source of “coordinated illicit activity” using fake Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, these efforts have been aimed at weakening Ukraine and its allies, as outlined in the report.

With the upcoming U.S. election, Meta anticipates Russian-backed online fraud campaigns targeting political candidates who support Ukraine.

Facebook has faced accusations of being a platform for election disinformation, while Russian operatives have utilized it and other U.S.-based social media platforms to fuel political tensions during various U.S. elections, including the 2016 election won by Donald Trump.

Experts are worried that generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Dall-E image generator can rapidly create on-demand content, leading to a flood of disinformation on social networks by malicious actors.

The report notes the use of AI in producing images, videos, translating and generating text, and crafting fake news articles and summaries.

When Meta investigates fraudulent activity, the focus is on account behavior rather than posted content.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

Influence campaigns span across various online platforms, with Meta observing that X (formerly Twitter) posts are used to lend credibility to fabricated content. Meta shared its findings with X and other internet companies, emphasizing the need for a coordinated defense against misinformation.

When asked about Meta’s view on X addressing scam reports, Agranovic mentioned, “With regards to Twitter (X), we’re still in the process of transitioning. Many people we’ve dealt with there in the past have already gone elsewhere.”

X has disbanded its trust and safety team and reduced content moderation efforts previously used to combat misinformation, making it a breeding ground for disinformation according to researchers.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Compensation Claims for $32 billion Over Russia’s Carbon Emissions During Ukraine War

Posted on by
Reply

A building damaged by a drone strike in Kiev in October 2022

Roman Fritzina/Associated Press/Alamy

A group of climate experts estimates that the first two years of Russia's war in Ukraine will result in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to about 175 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The extra warming caused by these emissions will lead to extreme weather events around the world, with impacts estimated at $32 billion.

Ukraine intends to add these climate-related costs to the list of damages for which Russia is responsible and for which it seeks compensation.

“This will be an important pillar in the compensation case we are building against Russia,” Ukrainian Minister of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Ruslan Strylets said in a statement.

“These are the costs to economies and societies caused by extreme weather events due to emissions-driven climate change,” said Leonard de Klerk, a climate businessman and founder of the War Greenhouse Gas Accounting Initiative.

The group today Fourth evaluation The report estimated the impact of the war from February 2022 to February 2024. It found that rebuilding bombed-out buildings, roads and other infrastructure was the biggest source of emissions, accounting for almost a third of the 175 million tonnes – a figure that also includes reconstruction that has yet to take place.

The remaining third is a direct result of the war, with fuel use accounting for the largest proportion.

About 14% of the total is due to passenger airlines having to reroute flights to avoid Russia and Ukraine. For example, a flight from Tokyo to London now travels over Canada instead of Russia, increasing flight times from 11 to 15 hours.

About 13 percent is due to an increase in wildfires recorded on satellite imagery, which is due not only to weapons-fired fires but also an end to fire management in occupied territories, the assessment said.

In most cases, there is a great deal of uncertainty around the figures as there are no official figures to rely on, and instead the group must rely on open source assessments and figures from past conflicts.

There's also the issue of how far to go in assessing the cascading effects of war: “We try to be as comprehensive as possible,” de Klerk says, “but at the same time, there are limitations. Some effects are too remote or too hard to quantify.”

Estimating how much damage additional emissions will cause (known as the social cost of carbon) is another tricky area: “The science of trying to put a monetary value on future damages is still developing,” says de Klerk.

The estimated figure of $32 billion Based on 2022 research The social cost of carbon is about $185 per tonne of CO2.

If this amount, which is growing every day, were to be paid, De Klerk thinks that one part should be sent to Ukraine to be used for measures such as reforestation and helping to capture some of the carbon, while the other part should go to the countries most affected by global warming, probably through the existing system. Green Climate FundBut where that money will go is a political decision that has yet to be resolved.

Low-income and small island nations have fought for decades to establish the principle that high-income countries with large greenhouse gas emissions should compensate them for loss and damage caused by their emissions. A loss and damage fund was finally established last year as part of an international climate agreement.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Is Russia’s Space Weapon Nuclear and a Potential Threat?

Posted on by
Reply

Mysterious new weapon could threaten satellites in Earth orbit

Key Fame/Shutterstock

According to a series of reports, the US government has privately warned lawmakers and European allies that Russia is planning to launch a nuclear-capable space weapon.

The news comes after U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner announced: vague warning It cited a “grave national security threat” and asked US President Joe Biden to “declassify all information related to this threat” for more public discussion. Since then, news reports have revealed additional details about what Russia's mystery weapon is. Here's what we know so far:

Does this mean Russia aims to deploy nuclear missiles and bombs into space?

This point remains unclear.Report from ABC News and new york times The term “nuclear weapon” may mean a weapon capable of producing an explosion involving a fission or fusion reaction.If this is true, it would be a violation of the rules 1967 Outer Space TreatyIt prohibits signatories, including Russia and the United States, from placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space.

Although a nuclear explosion in space would not directly harm people on Earth, it could destroy and disable multiple satellites.When the United States detonated a nuclear bomb in low Earth orbit during that period starfish prime In a 1962 experiment, the resulting radiation damaged or destroyed about a third of the satellites in low Earth orbit at the time.

However, there is another possibility that does not involve nuclear weapons.

What else does Russia have in its nuclear capabilities in space?

Russian space weapons may simply use nuclear power to power onboard systems. PBS News Hour U.S. officials said the Russian weapon was “probably nuclear-powered.”

Russia and the United States have used various forms of nuclear power in space for decades. One form includes nuclear fission reactors, such as those found in civilian nuclear power plants, which derive their power from an ongoing nuclear chain reaction.

The United States launched an experimental nuclear reactor into space in 1965, while Russia reportedly launched at least 34 nuclear reactors aboard satellites between 1967 and 1988. World Nuclear Association.

The United States, Russia, and other countries have also launched space missions using radioisotope systems. These use heat from the natural decay of radioactive materials as a power source, but they provide much less power than nuclear fission reactors.

What does this Russian space weapon actually do?

News reports agree that Russian weapons are designed to target satellites in space, rather than directly harming anyone or anything on the ground. However, if this weapon is able to knock satellites out of orbit, these objects could fall to the planet's surface and cause severe damage. If they blow away, the resulting cloud of space junk could threaten other satellites and even the International Space Station. This could even trigger a Kessler syndrome scenario, where a chain reaction of space debris gets out of control and makes it virtually impossible for satellites to survive in Earth orbit.

Various countries, including Russia, the United States, China, and India, have previously tested anti-satellite weapons (ASATs), which shoot missiles from Earth and shoot down objects in orbit. But countries have been much quieter about whether they have actually deployed ASAT weapons into space.

What does Russia say about the potential of this weapon?

A spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin's government reportedly called the U.S. warning a “malicious hoax” aimed at pushing the U.S. Congress to pass legislation authorizing more military aid to Ukraine. Ta. Reuters. Since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and Europe have supported Ukraine's military resistance against Russian forces.

Why does Russia need new anti-satellite weapons?

Satellites are important for both military and civilian applications that have a huge impact on modern life. They monitor the weather, power GPS systems, provide space-based surveillance, and enable communications. For example, SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation has proven essential to the Ukrainian military in coordinating drone and artillery fire against Russian forces on the battlefield.

A U.S. official quoted by PBS NewsHour suggested that Russian space weapons have “electronic warfare capabilities to target U.S. satellites critical to U.S. military and civilian communications.”

According to some sources, Russia has spent years developing a space-based electronic warfare system that can jam communications signals to and from satellites. report This is by the Secure World Foundation, a space security organization based in Colorado.Victoria Samson at the Secure World Foundation Said Such a Russian space weapon could be powered by nuclear power.

So how dangerous is this new anti-satellite weapon?

The good news is that if this space weapon sabotages satellites rather than physically destroying them, it will not cause a catastrophic space debris scenario like Kessler syndrome. However, it can still be dangerous.

Space weapons that use electronic warfare to jam signals could effectively disable satellites. That could disrupt critical battlefield communications, render GPS guidance systems inoperable and obscure reconnaissance satellites, making it more difficult for the United States to coordinate military forces around the world.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com