Acting NASA administrator to hold talks with Russian counterpart on space issues
Russian news agencies reported earlier this week that Duffy is set to hold talks with the head of Russian space agency Roscosmos, Dmitry Bakanov, for the first in-person meeting at the agencies' heads' level since 2018.
"We have wild disagreement with the Russians on Ukraine," Duffy told reporters after an event on Capitol Hill, while noting that the United States has a partnership with Russia on the International Space Station. "We're going to continue to build alliances and partnerships and friendships as humanity continues to advance in space exploration."
President Donald Trump named Duffy as NASA's interim head earlier this month. Duffy has emphasized that this is a temporary assignment.
"We find points of agreement, points of partnership, which is what we have with the International Space Station and the Russians," Duffy said. "Through hard times, we don't throw those relationships away."
Duffy is headed to Cape Canaveral, Florida on Wednesday for meetings and to attend the scheduled launch of the SpaceX Crew-11 flight this week.
The space program is one of the few international projects on which the United States and Russia still cooperate closely. Relations in other areas between the two countries have broken down since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
"We plan to discuss the continuation of the cross-flight program, the extension of the International Space Station's operational life, and the work of the Russia-U.S. joint task force on the future safe deorbiting and controlled ocean disposal of the ISS," TASS cited Bakanov as saying in the Roscosmos statement.
The last meeting between the heads of Roscosmos and NASA took place in October 2018, when Dmitry Rogozin, then director general of Roscosmos, met NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine in person also at the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
As the world hurtles ever closer to nuclear oblivion, where is the opposition?
Nuclear weapons – their lethal menace, dark history and future spread – are back in the headlines again and, as usual, the news is worrying, bordering on desperate. Russia's decision last week to formally abandon the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty banning medium- and short-range nuclear missiles completes the demolition of a key pillar of global arms control. It will accelerate an already frantic nuclear arms race in Europe and Asia at a moment when US and Russian leaders are taunting each other like schoolboys. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has repeatedly threatened the west with nuclear weapons during his war in Ukraine. Last November, Russian forces fired their new Oreshnik hypersonic, nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile at Dnipro. It travels 'like a meteorite' at 10 times the speed of sound and can reach any city in Europe, Putin boasted – which, if true, is a clear INF violation. Moscow blames its decision to ditch the treaty on hostile Nato actions. Yet it has long bypassed it in practice, notably by basing missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave on the Baltic sea, and Belarus. That said, Russia has a point about Nato. Donald Trump first reneged on the INF treaty way back in 2018. The subsequent huge buildup of mainly US-produced nuclear-capable missiles, launchers, planes and bombs in European Nato states has understandably alarmed Moscow. It should alarm Europeans, too. In the 1980s, deployments of US Pershing and cruise missiles sparked passionate protests across the continent. In contrast, today's ominous tick-tocking of the Doomsday Clock, closer than ever to catastrophe at 89 seconds to midnight, is mostly accompanied by eerie silence. Trump's melodramatic claim last week to have moved US nuclear submarines closer to Russia came in response to crude threats from the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a notorious Putin stooge. It was another chilling moment. But this puerile standoff will have served a useful purpose if it alerts slumbering European public opinion to the growing risk of nuclear confrontation. Maybe people have grown complacent; maybe they have too many other worries. Maybe governments such as Britain's, suspected of secretly stashing US nuclear gravity bombs at an East Anglian airbase, are again failing to tell the truth. (The UK government refuses to say whether or not American nukes are now at RAF Lakenheath.) Whatever the reason, it falls to the children of the cold war – to the daughters of Greenham Common, to the heirs of ban-the-bomb protesters, to CND's indefatigable campaigners – to more loudly warn: this way lies extinction. Yet why is it that they alone sound the tocsin? It's all happening again, only this time it's worse, and everyone's a target. If unchecked, today's vastly more powerful nukes could turn the planet into a universal killing field. Last week's ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings should be seen as a warning as well as a reminder. The nuclear weapons buildup in Europe proceeds apace. The US already stores nuclear bombs in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Now the UK, too, has offered facilities – and is buying nuclear-capable fighter jets. Germany will host Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles next year. The US is expanding missile bases in Poland and Romania. Nato countries such as Denmark and Norway have joined missile exercises aimed, for example, at establishing 'control' of the Baltic. All this is justified in the name of self-defence, principally against Putin's Russia. Likewise, Nato's decision in June to raise national defence budgets to 5% of GDP. The global picture is no less disturbing. The nine nuclear-armed states – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the US – spent $100.2bn, or $3,169 a second, on nuclear weapons last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) reported. That's up 11% on 2023. Under Trump's proposed 2026 budget plan, the US, already by far the biggest spender, will increase funding for its nuclear forces, including the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, by 26% to $87bn. Doing its bit for global insecurity, China has more than doubled its nuclear stockpile since 2020, to 500 warheads. Who can doubt where all this is leading? For the first time since the cold war, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are being transformed into potential nuclear battlegrounds, with the difference, now, that atomic bombs and missiles are viewed not as deterrents but as offensive, war-winning weapons. The proliferation of lower-yield, tactical warheads supposedly makes 'limited' nuclear warfare possible. Once that red line is crossed, an unstoppable chain reaction may ensue. The collapse of arms-control agreements – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) will be next to lapse in February 2026 – is destroying safety nets. Signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are bound 'in good faith' to gradually disarm; instead, they are rapidly rearming. Dehumanised AI systems may raise the risk of accidental Armageddon. Rogue states such as Israel and North Korea constantly push the boundaries. Trump's impetuosity and Putin's psychosis increase the sense of living in a global shooting gallery. It might have been very different. In June 1945, a group of University of Chicago nuclear physicists led by James Franck told President Harry Truman that an unannounced atomic bomb attack on Japan was 'inadvisable'. Detonating the new weapon would trigger an uncontrollable worldwide arms race, they predicted. Their warnings were rejected, their report suppressed. Now, the UN is trying again. In line with the 2021 treaty outlawing nuclear weapons, a high-powered, international scientific panel was tasked last month with examining 'the physical effects and societal consequences' of nuclear war 'on a local, regional and planetary scale'. The challenge is formidable, the outcome uncertain. But someone, somehow, somewhere must call a halt to the madness. It is still just possible to hope that, unlike in 1945, wiser counsels will prevail. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zelensky could be part of peace talks with Trump and Putin
Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to hold a summit in Alaska next Friday, 15 August, to discuss the war in Ukraine. Trump is reportedly considering inviting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to join the meeting, though nothing has been finalised. Zelensky has stated that any peace negotiations without Ukraine's involvement would be "dead decisions" and ineffective. Putin is expected to outline Russia's demands for a ceasefire, with Trump suggesting a peace deal might involve "some swapping of territories". This meeting would mark Putin's first visit to US soil in a decade, despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, and follows past controversial interactions between Trump and Putin.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Apocalyptic flash floods, seas of icy fog and frozen battlefields… How wars could be fought with ‘weaponised' weather
WORLD War 3 could be fought with "weaponised" weather by paralysing countries with apocalyptic flash floods or icy fog, experts fear. Sabotaging the weather could "control enemies" and disrupt military operations during conflict - or be used by terrorists to launch attacks. 9 9 9 Weather modification includes attempts to create more rain, prevent rain, reduce hail, prevent fog, make snow - or reduce the severity of a hurricane. It has historical precedent - with uses in the Vietnam War, during the 2008 Olympics in China, by Russia during one of Putin's parades, and even by the British government. But it's feared weather sabotage could set off a chain of events "that we have little control over". If weaponised, it could stop rainfall over crops to starve a nation - or spark floods to damage infrastructure. During a war, fighter planes could be smashed by hailstones, tanks could be frozen and warships could be forced to navigate icy fog. Dr Jim Flemming, a weather expert, told The Sun: "The military in the Cold War era, the generals would say that if you can control the weather, you can control the world. "You can control the enemy; you can do anything you want." Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former chemical weapons adviser for the British military, told The Sun it was a "very plausible" threat. He said: "You need the oxygen in a cloud to mix with a chemical to create a toxic substance - it would be very hit and miss. "But if you are not concerned about indiscriminate casualties and just want to create terror and fear, it could be pretty effective." "If you seeded a cloud which then produced 'acid-rain' you could conceivably say it is a chemical weapon. "The same goes if you seeded a cloud which then rained on crops... that could be chemical warfare." Dr Alan Robock, a Rutgers University scientist, said: "On a battlefield, you could produce clouds of particles to try and obscure laser-guided weapons of your enemy." Using planes, "cloud seeding" involves spiking clouds with pellets filled with a cocktail of chemicals to create more ice crystals and boost the amount of rain. Aircraft can also burn special salt flares to increase rainfall. 9 This means it has the potential to cause flash floods if it's misused by rogue actors. Other techniques include Britain using "brute force" during World War Two to control the weather for bombers returning in thick fog from Europe. Dr Robock said: "They put trenches of gasoline along the side of the runways and set them on fire. They would heat the air and evaporate the clouds." Johan Jaques, a senior meteorologist at tech company KISTERS, fears it's these types of technology could be exploited to spark "weather wars". Last year, when Dubai was swamped by floods, many theorised that it was caused by cloud seeding. He said: "The Dubai floods act as a stark warning of the unintended consequences we can unleash when we use such technology to alter the weather. "Additionally, we have little control over the aftermath of cloud seeding. "Where exactly is it going to be raining effectively? Using techniques such as cloud seeding to bring much-needed rainfall in one area can cause flash floods and droughts in another." 9 9 9 He said: "Anytime we interfere with natural precipitation patterns, we set off a chain of events that we have little control over. "While there is a lot we know, there is still a lot we don't and there are still plenty of gaps in our understanding of these complex weather systems. "Interference with the weather raises all kinds of ethical questions, as changing the weather in one country could lead to perhaps unintended yet catastrophic impacts in another. "After all, the weather does not recognise intentional borders. "If we're not careful, unrestrained use of this technology could end up causing diplomatic instabilities with neighbouring countries engaging in tit-for-tat 'weather wars'." Andrea Flossmann, a scientist at the World Meteorological Organisation, explained in a WMO report: "The atmosphere has no walls. "What you add may not have the desired effect in your vicinity, but by being transported along might have undesired effects elsewhere." In 1977, the UN banned all military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques. Since then, countries have tried to use weather modification for civil purposes - but there is no evidence that they necessarily worked. Countries that have modified the weather MORE than 50 countries currently have weather modification tech - and it has been used by many nations in the past. BRITAIN Between 1949 and 1952, the British government launched what it called Operation Cumulus - an attempt to modify the weather for potential military gains. Experiments involved RAF planes dropping chemicals above clouds in an attempt to make rain. However, the project was shut after the Lynmouth floods in 1952, which caused severe infrastructure damage and killed 34 people. While no evidence was found to establish a link between Operation Cumulus and the floods, widespread conspiracy theories blamed it for the disaster. They also used trenches of gasoline alongside runways to help get rid of fog for bombers returning from Europe. VIETNAM WAR The US military's "Operation Popeye" during the Vietnam War aimed to extend the monsoon season over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The targeted areas reportedly saw a longer monsoon season by 30 to 45 days. RUSSIA Russia removed cloud cover for an annual military parade. Vladimir Putin reportedly spent £1.3 million to spike the clouds with a chemical cocktail to supposedly guarantee sunshine on his vast annual military parade. UAE When Dubai was swamped by flash floods last year, some claimed it may have been the result of cloud seeding. Meteorologists at the National Centre for Meteorology said they flew six or seven cloud-seeding flights before the rains commenced. Flight-tracking data reportedly showed that one aircraft affiliated with the UAE's cloud-seeding efforts flew around the country. CHINA In 2008, China claimed to have used weather modification techniques to ensure good weather for that year's Olympic Games. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), rockets were used to induce rain by cloud seeding other areas in a bid to prevent rainfall in Beijing. The report says the Beijing Meteorological Bureau has a Beijing Weather Modification Office dedicated to controlling the weather in the city and surrounding areas. In 2020, China also unveiled plans to create artificial rain - boasting that artificial rain will be able to cover more than 2million square miles - an area some 22 times bigger than the UK. Chinese officials also claim that 223,000 square miles will be covered by "hail suppression" - and the nation boasted that its technology could be at an "advanced level" by 2035. Dr Flemming said: "We know now the Mongolian and Chinese dust clouds come across into Korea. "And there are a lot of transboundary concerns. There are concerns in Europe as well. "These things do trigger concerns. And the people planning for things have to think about those things." And the scientist fears these techniques could be weaponised in the "worst case scenario". He told The Sun: "I think you have to think of the worst case scenario which would be a rogue actor, whether it's a rogue billionaire hoping to do good or a rogue nation - they could intervene. "There's this theory of nuclear winter, so you could trigger off some very adverse effects. "But I see the risk as being too great. I see it as something that is not desirable at all." He added: "It's the scale of what you would have to do that is sort of beyond even small countries. "You need rich countries like China or the United States to develop a program over many years, and the only way it would make any sense is for all the countries to agree to do it. "Not one country wants the climate one way. "How do you set the planetary thermostat? If people don't agree on how to do it, that could lead to conflict." Cloud seeding has been branded dangerous by some scientists and medics over fears that the chemicals that are dropped can be toxic to animals. There are also concerns over what the artificial process could do to the earth's natural weather patterns if rogue actors interfere. 9
