Bezos-backed methane-tracking satellite lost in space
WELLINGTON (AFP)A satellite backed by billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has been lost in space while carrying out an important climate change mission, New Zealand officials said Wednesday.Designed to measure greenhouse gas emissions with "unprecedented resolution", the MethaneSAT space probe was also funded by Wellington and the US-based Environmental Defense Fund.Plagued with technical problems, the satellite recently stopped responding to its Earth-bound controllers."Clearly, this is a disappointing development," said Andrew Johnson, a senior official at the New Zealand Space Agency."As those who work in the space sector know, space is inherently challenging, and every attempt -- successful or not -- pushes the boundaries of what we know and what we're capable of."The Environmental Defense Fund, which led the project, said it was "difficult news" but would not be the end of its methane-tracking efforts.MethaneSAT was designed to measure emissions of the potent greenhouse gas, which fuels climate change by trapping heat in the planet's atmosphere.It has proven notoriously difficult to get accurate estimates of the methane emissions generated by oil and gas projects around the globe.MethaneSAT was launched into space in March 2024 on the back of a SpaceX rocket fired from California.
Controllers first lost contact with the satellite on June 20, the MethaneSAT team said in a statement. They confirmed it had lost all power on Monday this week and was "likely not recoverable".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
New York appeals court throws out $464m civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump
A US court on Thursday threw out a $464 million civil penalty against President Donald Trump imposed by a judge who found he fraudulently inflated his personal worth, calling the sum "excessive" but upholding the judgment against him. Five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court said the fine "violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution", which prohibits excessive or cruel punishments and penalties. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled against Mr Trump in February last year at the height of his campaign to retake the White House, which coincided with several active criminal prosecutions that the Republican slammed as "lawfare". Mr Trump celebrated the Thursday decision, calling the case a "political witch hunt". "A great win for America," he wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. In a subsequent post, he wrote: "This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely correct and, even, perfect." When Mr Engoron originally ruled against Mr Trump, he ordered the mogul-turned-politician to pay $464 million, including interest, while his sons Eric and Don Jr were told to hand over more than $4 million each. The judge found that Mr Trump and his company had unlawfully inflated his wealth and manipulated the value of properties to obtain favourable bank loans or insurance terms. Mr Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Mr Trump's appeal, and the President was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Alongside the financial hit to Mr Trump, the judge also banned him from running businesses for three years, which the President repeatedly referred to as a "corporate death penalty". State Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the initial case, can now appeal to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," one of the judges, appointed by a Republican governor to the bench, wrote. "The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Mr Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On January 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush-money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Mr Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Mr Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. The President is also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Ms Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Khaleej Times
8 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Donald Trump's fine of $464 million for civil fraud overturned by US court
A US court threw out Thursday a $464 million civil penalty against President Donald Trump imposed by a judge who found he fraudulently inflated his personal worth, calling the sum "excessive" but upholding the judgment against him. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled against Trump in February 2024, going on to order the mogul-turned-politician to pay $464 million, including interest, while his sons Eric and Don Jr. were told to hand over more than $4 million each. The judge found that Trump and his company had unlawfully inflated his wealth and manipulated the value of properties to obtain favourable bank loans or insurance terms. On Thursday, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the verdict, but ruled that the size of the fine was "excessive" and that it "violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution." State Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the initial case, could now appeal to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. Following the initial verdict, Trump subsequently sought to challenge the civil ruling as well as the scale and terms of the penalty, which has continued to accrue interest while he appeals. He has repeatedly condemned the case and the penalty as being politically motivated.
The National
10 hours ago
- The National
Starlink power cuts reveal vulnerabilities of space-based internet systems
Two major power cuts on Elon Musk's Starlink have shown how vulnerable satellite internet systems can be, especially when compared to the more resilient fibre and mobile networks most people rely on. Even though these systems, which Jeff Bezos's Amazon is also developing through its Project Kuiper constellation, are helping to revolutionise global connectivity by reaching remote areas, the recent blackouts show they are still prone to disruptions. Starlink users across several continents lost service in July for more than an hour after a technical issue in the company's network software. Another power cut on Monday left thousands of customers in North America without internet access until engineers restored the system. More than 8,000 Starlink satellites operate 550km above Earth. Users connect to them with their own dish, which links to a satellite overhead before the signal is passed to ground stations that plug into the wider internet. Updated satellites also use laser links to transfer data between each other in space, which helps SpaceX reduce its reliance on ground stations and improve coverage in remote areas and over oceans. Why are space-based systems less reliable? Dr Sarath Raj, director of the satellite ground station at Amity University in Dubai, said a Starlink power cut is a reminder of the difference between centralised and decentralised systems. 'Terrestrial networks like fibre and mobile are designed with multiple redundant pathways and local rerouting, so a cut cable or a downed tower typically only affects a limited area,' he told The National. 'Starlink, on the other hand, despite having thousands of satellites, depends heavily on its centralised control software. A single software glitch or misconfigured update can disrupt connectivity worldwide, creating a single point of failure.' Dr Raj said power cuts in traditional telecoms are usually caused by physical problems such as damaged cables, fallen towers or power failures, which tend to be limited to one area. But in low-Earth orbit constellations like Starlink, disruptions are more prone to be global and systemic, with the greater risks coming from software glitches or cyber attacks rather than individual satellites. 'The vast number of satellites in Starlink's constellation provides impressive physical coverage, but that alone does not guarantee reliability,' said Dr Raj. 'The real vulnerabilities lie in the ground-based infrastructure and control software, which act as the network's brains. 'Cyber attacks on centralised routing systems, disruptions at ground gateways that link satellites to the global internet, or even exploits in user terminals could all degrade or shut down service on a large scale.' How important is Starlink? Starlink was a crucial communications lifeline for Ukraine's military after Russia's invasion, restoring internet access where traditional networks had been destroyed. But when the service was first activated in 2022, Mr Musk warned it could also be hit by cyber attacks. Mr Musk posted on X at the time: 'Important warning: Starlink is the only non-Russian communications system still working in some parts of Ukraine, so probability of being targeted is high. Please use with caution.' Xianbin Wang, research chairman at the Trusted Communications and Computing at Western University, Canada, said low-Earth orbit (Leo) systems are less robust overall. 'As a standalone internet service provider, Leo networks are much less resilient than fibre and mobile networks,' he said. 'Traditional telecom systems are developed with highly redundant capacity and architecture. As a comparison, Leo satellite networks have very limited capacity and redundancy. 'Consequently, the outage probability in such networks is expected to be much higher.' Dr Raj echoed Mr Wang's comments and said that Starlink does provide 'impressive coverage' but the real vulnerabilities lie in its ground-based infrastructure and control software, which act as the network's 'brains'. 'Cyber attacks on centralised routing systems, disruptions at ground gateways that link satellites to the global internet, or even exploits in user terminals could all degrade or shut down service on a large scale,' he said. What are the advantages? Despite these risks, the internet satellites do still fill a crucial gap, especially in remote and conflict-hit areas where terrestrial networks are unavailable. 'The advantage of the satellite communication is its global coverage, including remote but critical areas,' Mr Wang said. 'Depending on the needs and situations, Leo satellite networks could play a critical role.' Mr Raj said that because of the growing reliance on these systems, internet satellites should be considered part of a country's critical infrastructure. 'Starlink has evolved from an innovative service into a strategic asset, relied upon by remote communities and even militaries in conflict zones such as Ukraine,' he said. 'For this reason, it should be treated as critical infrastructure, similar to power grids, water systems and terrestrial telecom.' Regulating such a system, however, is complicated because Starlink is a private company serving a global customer base. 'This creates jurisdictional challenges as it is unclear which authorities set the rules and ensure compliance when the service spans multiple countries,' said Dr Raj.
