Tag Archives: tensions

NASA Faces Another Leadership Departure Amidst Growing Tensions About Its Future

Posted on by
Reply

The head of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center announced her resignation on Monday.

Makenzie Lystrup, who has been at the helm of the Maryland facility since April 2023, will depart the agency on August 1st. As indicated in a statement from NASA, Goddard is responsible for many major missions, including the Hubble Space Telescope, the Solar Dynamics Observatory, and the Osiris Rex mission that retrieved samples from asteroids.

Lystrup’s resignation comes shortly after Laurie Leshin stepped down as the director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Institute in Pasadena, California.

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Director, McKenzie Lystrup, at a panel discussion during the 2024 Artemis Suppliers Conference in Washington, DC
Joel Kovsky / NASA

These departures come as NASA and other federal agencies face significant funding challenges and personnel reductions as part of a larger effort to streamline the federal workforce. Inside NASA, there are rising concerns on Capitol Hill regarding how space agencies can manage their duties with a reduced staffing structure and the rationale for implementing cuts before Congressional budget approval.

At the same time, more than 2,000 senior-level staff members are expected to exit NASA as part of workforce reduction initiatives. First reported by Politico, this group includes senior management and specialists, raising concerns about a “brain drain” within the agency.

NASA staff will need to make decisions on accepting “deferred resignation,” voluntary departures, or early retirement by the end of the week.

President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 budget aims to cut approximately 25% from NASA’s budget, totaling over $6 billion. The most substantial reductions will impact the Space Science, Earth Science, and Mission Support divisions. As per budget outlines.

If passed by Congress, this budget could lead to the discontinuation of NASA’s space launch system rockets and the Orion spacecraft.

In reaction to the budget proposal, over 280 current and former NASA employees have signed a letter addressed to NASA’s interim administrator Sean Duffy, expressing that recent policies from the Trump administration “endanger public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine NASA’s essential mission.”

The letter, known as the Voyager declaration, states that these changes have had “devastating impacts” on the agency’s personnel and prioritize political goals over human safety, scientific progress, and the prudent use of public funds.

An internal communication obtained by NBC News indicates that before Duffy replaced Janet Petro, the former NASA deputy manager, she was compelled to justify how budget cutbacks and restructuring were in the agency’s best interests.

It remains unclear if the resignations of Lystrup and Leshin are connected to the ongoing turmoil at NASA and other federal institutions. NASA’s announcement about Leshin’s resignation stated her departure was “for personal reasons.”

NASA did not disclose any specifics regarding Lystrup’s resignation. In an internal message obtained by NBC News, Lystrup expressed confidence in Goddard’s leadership team and the future direction of the center.

“I feel privileged to have been part of this remarkable journey with you,” she mentioned in an email. “That was an honor.”

NASA announced on Monday that Cynthia Simmons, the assistant director, will step in as the acting director of Goddard starting in August.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Days After Trump’s Commitment to Underwater Mining, Tensions Mount Between Both Sides

Posted on by
Reply

Shortly after President Trump issued an executive order to expedite submarine mining efforts, the US government received its first permission application. This initiative is championed by notable supporters within the metal industry.

On Tuesday, CEO Gerald Baron was present in Washington for a controversial hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources. He likened the beginning of this process to a “starting gun” signaling a race to extract minerals like cobalt and nickel from nodules situated 2.5 miles deep on the ocean floor.

Debate erupted among committee members from both parties regarding the environmental implications of this mining practice. The Trump administration indicated it would contemplate permits for mining activities within US jurisdiction and international waters.

Other nations have accused the US of attempting to bypass international law, arguing that the waters designated for submarine mining should come under the governance of an independent international authority.

To date, no commercial submarine mining has been conducted.

California leader Jared Huffman, a ranking Democrat on the committee, criticized both the Metals Company and Trump for advancing undersea mining in “reckless cowboy fashion.” Democrats raised concerns over the financial viability of mining cobalt and nickel, citing major electric vehicle manufacturers’ shift towards alternative battery materials.

“The financial model of the industry is based on overly optimistic assumptions and does not reflect the realities and volatility of the global mineral market,” remarked Oregon Democrat Maxine E. Dexter.

The Metals Company attempted to reassure the committee, arguing that the potential harm to the seabed would outweigh the limited job creation and that accessing these minerals could reduce dependence on Chinese sources. They stated that a decade of extensive environmental studies supports their position.

Trump’s order follows years of delays by international authorities in establishing a regulatory framework for submarine mining. The authorities, established under United Nations auspices decades ago, are likely to miss another deadline this year for finalizing these regulations.

Baron informed the committee that it took him 14 years to draft the mining code, describing it as a “deliberate strategy” to slow undersea mining.

He further claimed that a polymetallic nodule extracted by his company is now on President Trump’s desk in the Oval Office.

According to the US Geological Survey, it is estimated that nodules within the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Eastern Pacific contain more nickel, cobalt, and manganese than all terrestrial reserves combined. This proposed mining zone spans half the size of the US between Mexico and Hawaii.

Committee Chair Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, insisted that subsea mining is essential for liberating the US from China’s “supply chain control.”

China has recently placed export restrictions on several rare earth elements, raising concerns that American companies may face shortages in producing advanced electronic devices.

The House Committee also considered a study discussing the impact of submarine mining on the seafloor conducted by Thomas Peacock, a mechanical engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, partially funded by metal companies.

Dr. Peacock indicated that there may be countless undiscovered species in the Clarion Clipperton Zone, suggesting that certain areas should be off-limits for mining. However, he noted that the anticipated environmental impacts of nodule mining might not be as severe as speculated.

He specifically minimized the risk of mining causing plumes of sand and debris that could harm seabed life, comparing the fragments to “grains of sand in a fishbowl.”

In attendance with Mr. Baron was the CEO of Impossible Metals, a future deep-sea mining company. Unlike other companies that use vacuum-like extraction technologies along the ocean floor, Impossible Metals claims to have developed machines that can collect nodules selectively without disturbing the seabed.

“Our underwater robots hover to gather mineral-rich nodules from the seabed through AI-guided selective harvesting,” explained Oliver Gunasekara, CEO of Impossible Metals. “We avoid all visible marine life and leave 60% untouched.”

The company has reapplied for permission to conduct operations in US Samoa. Gunasekara noted that their previous applications were rejected during the Biden administration, but with new leadership in both American Samoa and Washington, he is optimistic about gaining approval.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Microsoft’s future unclear amid escalating tensions in Gaza conflict. “On the brink of uncertainty”

Posted on by
Reply

fOr, for the second time last month, Microsoft employees disrupted high-level executives speaking at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary on April 4. They were protesting the company’s role in Israel’s ongoing siege in Gaza.

AI executive Mustafasleiman was suspended by employees Ibtihal Aboussad and Vaniya Agrawal. The two were fired within a few days. Microsoft president Brad Smith and former CEO Steve Ballmer were yelled at in Great Hall in Seattle on March 20 by current and former employees.

Before the April event, there was an outside gathering that also included current and former Tech Giant employees. Protesters projected a sign onto the wall of the hall called “Microsoft Powers Genocide,” showing that since October 7, 2023, Israel has been extensively using its AI and cloud computing services.

The rally and confusion were the latest in the employee protests at Microsoft’s headquarters in Redmond, Washington, urging the company to cut ties with Israel. This comes after years of simmering tensions on the company’s message boards and a recent workplace dispute.

Taken together, the protests indicate that more people have decided to leave the company for good, according to current and past employees who spoke with the Guardian. Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.

The recent events at Microsoft reflect similar incidents at other tech companies, such as Google, where employees were fired as they protested their ties with Israel. In February, Google adjusted its AI guidelines, removing the commitment to not use artificial intelligence for surveillance or weapons.

Anxiety about the increase in Redmond

Former Microsoft software engineer Hossam Nasr described the situation at the company as being close to a turning point. He highlighted the events in February as an example of growing frustration among employees.

The firing of employees who raised concerns has galvanized others in the company who are worried about the issue, along with recent media coverage of Microsoft’s role in the siege of Gaza in Israel.

Aboussad told the Guardian that she had been increasingly at odds over the last few months as a software engineer working for AI. She expressed concerns about Microsoft’s deep ties with the Israeli government.
AP Report

Within days of speaking with the Guardian, Aboussad was terminated. Several colleagues mentioned they were considering leaving the company, she stated.

From Viva to IRL

Before the recent direct protest, Microsoft employees were mainly discussing the Hamas attacks and Israel’s continued retaliation online. Several conversations on Microsoft’s Viva Engage company’s message board sparked controversy. One employee posted about the lack of symmetry in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which led to heated debates.

Employees critical of Israel’s actions have been vocal about what they perceive as a double standard within the company, especially following events from October 7th. They have accused Microsoft of censoring viewpoints on internal forums while treating Israeli supporters differently.
From immediately after October 7th. One employee shared an email from the company’s Global Employee Relations Team emphasizing the need for respectful discussions on the topic of Israel and Gaza. There were restrictions on postings related to these topics on the company message board.

Online discussions among employees have evolved throughout 2024, according to Nasr. Many employees initially focused on petitions urging the company to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, but the attention gradually shifted to Microsoft’s business practices. By the end of the year, Nasr and others began a campaign to boycott Microsoft’s cloud computing services, cancel contracts with the Israeli military, and gather signatures from colleagues in protest of the company’s ties with the Israeli government.

Reporting Microsoft’s role in Gaza Roil employee discussion

Documents obtained by Drop site, an independent news outlet, revealed that high-tech companies, including Microsoft, are actively seeking to serve the Israeli military. This discovery fueled concerns among some Microsoft employees, leading to internal discussions about the company’s ethics and practices.

Anna Hutt, a long-time employee at Microsoft, highlighted the importance of sharing information about the company’s actions within the organization. She emphasized the need for open conversations and offline organizing efforts to raise awareness among employees.

Nasr mentioned that Apartheid’s Azure has partnered with Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) in adding Microsoft to their boycott campaign list. This move reflects growing discontent among employees regarding the company’s involvement with the Israeli military.

One Microsoft employee expressed frustration over what they perceived as a betrayal of the company’s stated values in its contract with Israel. They cited examples of events where critical perspectives were silenced and called for a boycott of Microsoft’s products that enable military actions.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Kennedy meets with tribal leader amidst HHS cut tensions

Posted on by
Reply

When Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was about to take the stage, the governor of the Gila River Indian community was still addressing the audience, expressing concerns about recent Trump administration actions.

Governor Stephen Law Lewis emphasized the importance of tribes having a political stance and urged for a more thoughtful approach to government efficiency cuts, rather than a drastic one.

Kennedy was on his Healthy Tour of America in the Southwest states, with his latest stop at the Gila River Wild Horse Pass Resort and Casino in Arizona to participate in The Tribal Self Governance Conference.

The 1975 law allowed native communities to develop programs based on their cultural needs, marking a shift from federal administration. Kennedy’s dedication to improving tribal health stems from his family history and personal experiences.

However, recent decisions within Kennedy’s agency have raised concerns among tribal leaders regarding the support for Indigenous communities in the face of health challenges.

Kennedy assured tribal leaders that certain health services for Native Americans would be exempt from recent executive orders. He engaged in discussions on strategies to address health issues within tribal communities.

Kennedy emphasized the need to address the root causes of health crises in tribal communities, particularly focusing on the food system. He also shared plans to implement “robot nurses” in Indigenous groups, which was met with mixed reactions from the crowd.

His extensive work advocating for Indigenous communities dates back to the 1990s, highlighting a commitment to supporting native groups in various negotiations and initiatives.

Kennedy pledged to address the unique challenges faced by Indigenous leaders in accessing high-quality healthcare. The discussion also touched on the need to build confidence in vaccines among Native American communities.

Kennedy’s tour included visits to healthcare facilities serving Native Americans, as well as outreach to tribal groups to address their unique health concerns.

He defended his agency’s response to a measles outbreak during a press conference, highlighting the importance of effective public health initiatives.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Impending Lunar Battle: Tensions rise as a possible moon war looms on the horizon

Posted on by
Reply

The Moon, Earth’s loyal companion that remains steadfast in its orbit around our planet, has been a topic of fascination and exploration ever since the early days of space travel. Missions have been planned, rovers have traversed its surface, and even a flag has been planted on its barren landscape.

But what is the appeal of the Moon? Situated about 400,000 km away from Earth, it poses numerous challenges for human habitation, such as high levels of solar radiation. However, the Moon offers a unique opportunity for planetary research, scientific experiments, and potentially lucrative mining ventures due to its untapped resources.

With the allure of untapped resources comes a race to be the first to claim ownership of the Moon. This begs the question: Who does the Moon truly belong to? Philosopher and author AC Grayling explores this complex issue in his latest book, Who owns the moon?

SF: Why the interest in the Moon, and will we ever reach it?

ACG: The Moon holds vast potential for mining operations as it is rich in resources, presenting a more feasible option compared to Earth. Despite logistical challenges, rapid technological advancements and substantial investments indicate that lunar exploration is imminent.

Some argue that a robotic base alone may not suffice for the extraction of valuable resources like Helium-3, crucial for clean nuclear fusion. The lure of economic gains raises concerns about potential conflicts over lunar territory.

SF: So, who lays claim to the Moon?

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by the United Nations, prohibits militarization and territorial ownership of the Moon, declaring it a common heritage of mankind. This ambiguity has spurred competition among nations to pioneer lunar technologies.

Efforts to establish guidelines were made in 1979, yet the absence of binding agreements leaves room for potential disputes over lunar resources, particularly valuable elements like Helium-3. The lack of a regulatory framework raises concerns about future conflicts, extending beyond Earth.

Credit: Gremlin

What’s next, and will legal frameworks evolve?

The need for stringent regulations is apparent, given the burgeoning interest in lunar exploration by various space agencies. Proposals for lunar space stations and the Artemis Accords, a collaborative effort among nations for responsible space conduct, hint at evolving norms to govern lunar activities.

Historically, the 1961 Antarctic Treaty provides a model for international cooperation in preserving a common resource. However, challenges arise as countries like China and Russia seek to assert territorial claims in Antarctica, signaling potential conflicts over resource exploitation.

The Moon’s status as a shared resource prompts calls for inclusive lunar laws and international treaties to ensure equitable benefits. Efforts to establish regulatory frameworks face obstacles, mirroring past struggles in maritime law and resource management.

Is there a case for leaving the Moon untouched?

The Moon’s vast expanse and desolate nature diminish concerns over environmental impact, distinguishing it from Earth. Despite existing space debris, the Moon’s remote location offers ample space for exploration and development.

What lies beyond the Moon?

Envisioning a future where lunar infrastructure facilitates Mars exploration through water extraction for fuel production, heralds a new era of space colonization. Echoing historical precedents, colonies in space may strive for autonomy, shaping interplanetary relations akin to terrestrial geopolitics.

As humanity embarks on extraterrestrial endeavors, adherence to ethical principles and equitable resource-sharing remains pivotal for a sustainable cosmic future.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

About our expert, A.C. Grayling

AC Grayling, a distinguished philosopher and author, sheds light on lunar ownership in his book “Whose Moon is It?” He is also the founder of the New College of the Humanities, recognized for his contributions to literary criticism and philosophical discourse.

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com