logo
A half-ton Soviet-era spacecraft stuck in orbit for 53 years is expected to make an uncontrolled plunge back to Earth any day now.

A half-ton Soviet-era spacecraft stuck in orbit for 53 years is expected to make an uncontrolled plunge back to Earth any day now.

Yahoo09-05-2025

A Soviet-era spacecraft launched in the 1970s is expected to make its return to Earth sometime this weekend. The unmanned robotic spacecraft, Kosmos 482, originally set out to land on the scorching surface of Venus but it never completed its mission. Instead, it's been stuck in Earth's orbit for over 50 years.
After all this time, the half-ton object, about the size of a concert grand piano or a male polar bear, is finally expected to make an uncontrolled plunge back to Earth. The problem is, experts aren't exactly sure when — or where — it will land. (Yikes.)
Yahoo News spoke with Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, about what we do know about the object and whether we should be worried. His responses below have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
McDowell: It was originally meant to be the Soviet probe, Venus 9 [that would travel to the surface of Venus]. They launched it in March 1972, along with Venus 8. The rockets put their space probes in parking orbit around the Earth, and then fired the upper stages to send them out toward Venus. Venus 8 got to Venus.
But the upper stage for Venus 9 broke down halfway through its rocket firing, stranding the probe in orbit around the Earth. Rather than admit that they'd had a failure, the Soviet Union said 'Oh, we just launched another Kosmos satellite. It's totally fine. We're calling it Kosmos 482. Nothing to see here.'
That is like their standard practice. They're now up to Kosmos 2500-something. They throw all their military satellites in there, but also their failures that they don't want to admit.
There were a few pieces [of Kosmos 482] left in orbit. There was the rocket stage, there was the main part of the Venus probe, and there was this half-ton sphere that was meant to be the thing that would enter Venus's atmosphere and survive to the surface.
Every time these things go around the Earth, they skim the atmosphere and lose a little bit of energy. So they don't go quite so high up the next time. The orbit shrinks over time until eventually the [objects] reenter.
Two of the [three] objects reentered in the early 1980s, and there was this one object left that didn't seem to be affected as much by Earth's atmosphere.
After 50 years of this going around the Earth every few hours, it has lost enough energy for its orbit to shrink enough that now it's on the verge of reentry.
Sometime over the weekend, it's going to get low enough that it can no longer orbit and the atmosphere is too dense. It will slow down rapidly and crash onto the Earth.
After 50 years, the batteries are stone cold so there's no way the parachutes will work.
[The object weighs] half a ton. It's traveling at 17,000 miles an hour, just like everything else in low Earth orbit. But once it reenters, you'll see this big fireball, and that is the speed energy getting converted into heat energy.
The heat shield may protect it from burning up and melting during reentry.
It can't fly through the air at 17,000 miles an hour. As it gets dense enough in the atmosphere, [the object] slows down really rapidly because of this enormous headwind. That speed gets converted into heat, and everything slows down. Once it crashes down to the lower atmosphere, it'll only be going at a couple-hundred miles an hour.
Somewhere between London in the north and the Falkland Islands in the south (off the east coast of Argentina in the South Atlantic Ocean).
So somewhere between 52 degrees north and 52 degrees south. If you're in Scotland or northern Canada or Antarctica, it's not going to come over you. Pretty much anywhere else is still in the frame.
Until we can know exactly when it's coming down, we won't know where because if you're an hour off, you're 17,000 miles wrong. This is always true with uncontrolled satellite reentries. We never know where they're going to come down until after the fact.
Because the Earth is a big target, the chances that it's going to come down near you is tiny. Most of the Earth is ocean, but maybe we'll be unlucky and it'll hit land.
Even today, most land is unoccupied, so the chance that it will hit a person is very small. It's not zero, but it's small.
I think any one satellite reentry hitting someone is super unlikely, but we're having so many of them now that we're kind of rolling the dice each time, and eventually we're going to get unlucky.
We get about three a day. Most of them are small enough that they melt entirely, burn up and don't reach the ground.
Every month or so we get a couple that are going to leave something reaching the ground. Usually they fall over the ocean. Every few months, we get a case where we found a bit on the ground that's from the satellite reentry.
What's unusual about this object is that it's designed to survive Venus, which has utterly hellish conditions. It was over-designed for surviving a reentry into Earth's atmosphere. Mind you, it's been in space for over 50 years, so whether the heat shield is still pristine or not, is unclear.
Normally what happens is the satellite will melt, even if it doesn't completely burn up, and it will break into chunks. Even if they survive to the ground, they'll be strewn over several hundred miles of reentry track. So there's not much in any one place. But for this [Kosmos 482 object], it's going to come down in one half-ton lump, most likely. So that'd be bad if there's anyone underneath.
One thing that's important to know about is the liability convention, which is part of space law. Suppose this crashes into some building in the U.S., or into your garden shed. What do you do? The U.S. government talks to the Russian government and says, 'We have a bit of your space debris under the liability convention. You're entitled to have it back, but you're also liable for any damage that it caused.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SpaceX launches 23 more Starlink satellites from Florida (video)
SpaceX launches 23 more Starlink satellites from Florida (video)

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

SpaceX launches 23 more Starlink satellites from Florida (video)

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. SpaceX sent another batch of its Starlink satellites into low Earth orbit from Florida early Tuesday morning (June 3). Twenty three (23) of the broadband internet units, including 13 with direct-to-cell capabilities, rode atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on a nine-minute trip into space. Liftoff occurred at 12:23 a.m. EDT (0423 GMT). The satellites were set to be released into orbit about an hour later. As to plan, the Falcon 9 rocket's first stage was jettisoned and returned to a landing on "Just Read the Instructions," a droneship positioned in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida. This was the 21st flight for the first stage, including 13 prior Starlink missions, according to a flight summary on SpaceX's website. Monday's launch followed a similar mission from Vandenberg Space Force Station in southern California on Saturday. That flight deployed 27 Starlink satellites. The active Starlink constellation is now more than 7,600 satellites strong, according to tracker and astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, making it the largest space-based communications network in history. SpaceX launched about one thousand more of the satellites, which as of today are no longer in service.

Pentagon official: Cutting off Harvard project endangers national security
Pentagon official: Cutting off Harvard project endangers national security

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Pentagon official: Cutting off Harvard project endangers national security

A Pentagon official begged her bosses not to cancel a Harvard University grant aimed at curtailing biological threats, arguing that pulling it would pose 'grave and immediate harm to national security.' The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) director of contracting said the grant funded a Harvard research team that had reached a 'pivotal juncture' in a project addressing the 'biological threat landscape,' according to Monday court filings in the university's lawsuit against the Trump administration, first reported by The Boston Globe. The official was unnamed in the filings. Harvard, which is suing the administration over roughly $2.5 billion in frozen funding, has declared the cuts to be illegal and haphazard and obtained government records to prove their case. In the filing, the lawyers detail the risk of cutting off funding to projects related to public health and national security concerns. In one instance, Harvard researchers were working on a military project known as the AMPHORA program, aimed at increasing awareness of emerging biological threats, when the Department of Defense (DOD) on May 12 informed the university it had terminated the grant funding the effort, according to a memorandum filed by Harvard's lawyers in federal court. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the cancellation of that military grant, as well as others, the filing notes. After learning the DOD grant was terminated by senior officials, the DARPA contracting official 'pleaded to save it, noting that Harvard was the 'critical' and 'top performing team' on the program, and that '[i]nadequate knowledge of the biological threat landscape poses grave and immediate harm to national security' and threatens military servicemember safety,' the memo states. 'The Government's thoughtless and retaliatory strategy meant that contracting officers and policy experts took a back seat in deciding whether to terminate grants that continued to benefit the public.' The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill as to whether the Harvard grant for the AMPHORA program remains terminated. The White House has frozen the funding after Harvard would not acquiesce to demands such as changing its hiring and admissions process and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The Trump administration accuses the university of being 'deliberately indifferent' to antisemitic harassment on campus, favoring others over white people and men in its hiring and admissions processes and creating a culture intolerant of conservative viewpoints. Harvard's lawyers, meanwhile, say the administration has failed to acknowledge 'the dozens of steps Harvard has taken and committed to take to address antisemitism and bias.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK

Forbes

time10 hours ago

  • Forbes

Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK

Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store