Soviet-Era Spacecraft Is Set to Plunge to Earth a Half-Century After Its Failed Launch to Venus
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.—A Soviet-era spacecraft meant to land on Venus in the 1970s is expected to soon plunge uncontrolled back to Earth.
It's too early to know where the half-ton mass of metal might come down or how much of it will survive reentry, according to space debris-tracking experts.
Dutch scientist Marco Langbroek predicts the failed spacecraft will reenter around May 10. He estimates it will come crashing in at 150 mph, if it remains intact.
'While not without risk, we should not be too worried,' Langbroek said in an email.
The object is relatively small and, even if it doesn't break apart, 'the risk is similar to that of a random meteorite fall, several of which happen each year. You run a bigger risk of getting hit by lightning in your lifetime,' he said.
The chance of the spacecraft actually hitting someone or something is small, he added. 'But it cannot be completely excluded.'
Related Stories
4/20/2025
3/6/2025
The Soviet Union launched the spacecraft known as Kosmos 482 in 1972, one of a series of Venus missions. But it never made it out of Earth orbit because of a rocket malfunction.
Most of it came tumbling down within a decade. But Langbroek and others believe the landing capsule itself—a spherical object about 3 feet in diameter—has been circling the world in a highly elliptical orbit for the past 53 years, gradually dropping in altitude.
It's quite possible that the 1,000-pound-plus spacecraft will survive reentry. It was built to withstand a descent through the carbon dioxide-thick atmosphere of Venus, said Langbroek of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.
Experts doubt the parachute system would work after so many years. The heat shield may also be compromised after so long in orbit.
It would be better if the heat shield fails, which would cause the spacecraft to burn up during its dive through the atmosphere, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics' Jonathan McDowell said in an email. But if the heat shield holds, 'it'll reenter intact and you have a half-ton metal object falling from the sky.'
The spacecraft could reenter anywhere between 51.7 degrees north and south latitude, or as far north as London and Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, almost all the way down to South America's Cape Horn. But since most of the planet is water, 'chances are good it will indeed end up in some ocean,' Langbroek said.
By Marcia Dunn
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
10 hours ago
- New York Times
A Biotech Start-Up Promises Immortality. Is It All a Fraud?
NOTES ON INFINITY, by Austin Taylor In Austin Taylor's debut, 'Notes on Infinity,' the campus novel is reimagined as a start-up fairy tale: Two college students from different worlds meet, spend their days and nights enjoying a heady exchange of ideas, drop out of school, found a wildly successful company, and flame out in scandal. Zoe, a driven and polished undergraduate chemist at Harvard, takes up with Jack, who at first seems to be a flaky genius in the grand tradition. Together they hatch an idea for prolonging human life, and name their biotech company Manna. One of them is keeping secrets, however, and the speed of their success doesn't allow either the time or inclination to reflect. Readers will see Theranos and a bit of FTX in the novel's inspiration, allusions that serve to dramatize the psychology of ambition and denial, how fraud can begin as a desperate, temporary fix, and then grow as the cost of the deception builds and builds. Taylor doesn't make her founders' initial lie explicit until after their fall from grace, leaving the reader to suspect that the whole business has to be rotten but not knowing exactly how or where. Mostly the pages turn themselves, but at times the familiarity of the plot can be grating. This is the challenge of basing any narrative on current events: When you think you know where a story is going, it's harder to see the characters as people. The messy, complex bond between Zoe and Jack gives the events greater texture and dimension, though: They lie to protect not just themselves, but each other. In this campus novel, the allure of tech entrepreneurship has altered the social hierarchy, to a point. Jack is befriended by a rich student named Carter, whom he later overhears justifying their relationship to his rich friends as they place bets on which of their awkward, outsider classmates will be 'the next Zuck.' When your peers place bets on your future, you become not a friend, but an instrument of their strategy. After some initial throat clearing, Taylor's fast-paced writing captures the pressure of start-up culture, and the ease with which a founder can be separated from their own creation. Zoe and Jack divvy up their responsibilities to match their perceived talents: Jack as the chaotic scientist, Zoe as the articulate, organized and elegant face of Manna. All public scrutiny will fall on her, while Jack will enjoy the benefits of the tech visionary stereotype. This fits neatly with their respective upbringings: Zoe's father is an M.I.T. professor and her mother is the renowned hostess of his 'living room seminars,' where 6-year-old Zoe 'would sometimes answer one of his rhetorical questions or proposals in a small, high voice: 'Your reasoning sounds flawed,' or 'Did you check your math there, Daddy?' Everyone thought this was adorable.' Jack grew up poor and neglected in central Maine; Harvard is his chance to escape, until he wants to escape it, too. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is NASA Ready for Death in Space?
In 2012 NASA stealthily slipped a morgue into orbit. No press release. No fanfare. Just a sealed, soft-sided pouch tucked in a cargo shipment to the International Space Station (ISS) alongside freeze-dried meals and scientific gear. Officially, it was called the Human Remains Containment Unit (HRCU). To the untrained eye it looked like a shipping bag for frozen cargo. But to NASA it marked something far more sobering: a major advance in preparing for death beyond Earth. As a kid, I obsessed over how astronauts went to the bathroom in zero gravity. Now, decades later, as a forensic pathologist and a perennial applicant to NASA's astronaut corps, I find myself fixated on a darker, more haunting question: [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] What would happen if an astronaut died out there? Would they be brought home, or would they be left behind? If they expired on some other world, would that be their final resting place? If they passed away on a spacecraft or space station, would their remains be cast off into orbit—or sent on an escape-velocity voyage to the interstellar void? NASA, it turns out, has begun working out most of these answers. And none too soon. Because the question itself is no longer if someone will die in space—but when. No astronaut has ever died of natural causes off-world. In 1971 the three-man crew of the Soviet Soyuz 11 mission asphyxiated in space when their spacecraft depressurized shortly before its automated atmospheric reentry—but their deaths were only discovered once the spacecraft landed on Earth. Similarly, every U.S. spaceflight fatality to date has occurred within Earth's atmosphere—under gravity, oxygen and a clear national jurisdiction. That matters, because it means every spaceflight mortality has played out in familiar territory. But planned missions are getting longer, with destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. And NASA's astronaut corps is getting older. The average age now hovers around 50—an age bracket where natural death becomes statistically relevant, even for clean-living fitness buffs. Death in space is no longer a thought experiment. It's a probability curve—and NASA knows it. In response, the agency is making subtle but decisive moves. The most recent astronaut selection cycle was extended—not only to boost intake but also to attract younger crew members capable of handling future long-duration missions. If someone were to die aboard the ISS today, their body would be placed in the HRCU, which would then be sealed and secured in a nonpressurized area to await eventual return to Earth. The HRCU itself is a modified version of a military-grade body bag designed to store human remains in hazardous environments. It integrates with refrigeration systems already aboard the ISS to slow decomposition and includes odor-control filters and moisture-absorbent linings, as well as reversed zippers for respectful access at the head. There are straps to secure the body in a seat for return, and patches for name tags and national flags. Cadaver tests conducted in 2019 at Sam Houston State University have proved the system durable. Some versions held for over 40 days before decomposition breached the barrier. NASA even drop-tested the bag from 19 feet to simulate a hard landing. But it's never been used in space. And since no one yet knows how a body decomposes in true microgravity (or, for that matter, on the moon), no one can really say whether the HRCU would preserve tissue well enough for a forensic autopsy. This is a troubling knowledge gap, because in space, a death isn't just a tragic loss—it's also a vital data point. Was an astronaut's demise from a fluke of their physiology, or an unavoidable stroke of cosmic bad luck—or was it instead a consequence of flaws in a space habitat's myriad systems that might be found and fixed? Future lives may depend on understanding what went wrong, via a proper postmortem investigation. But there's no medical examiner in orbit. So NASA trains its crews in something called the In-Mission Forensic Sample Collection protocol. The space agency's astronauts may avoid talking about it, but they all have it memorized: Document everything, ideally with real-time guidance from NASA flight surgeons. Photograph the body. Collect blood and vitreous fluid, as well as hair and tissue samples. Only then can the remains be stowed in the HRCU. NASA has also prepared for death outside the station—on spacewalks, the moon or deep space missions. If a crew member perishes in vacuum but their remains are retrieved, the body is wrapped in a specially designed space shroud. The goal isn't just a technical matter of preventing contamination. It's psychological, too, as a way of preserving dignity. Of all the 'firsts' any space agency hopes to achieve, the first-ever human corpse drifting into frame on a satellite feed is not among them. If a burial must occur—in lunar regolith or by jettisoning into solar orbit—the body will be dutifully tracked and cataloged, treated forevermore as a hallowed artifact of space history. Such gestures are also of relevance to NASA's plans for off-world mourning; grief and memorial protocols are now part of official crew training. If a death occurs, surviving astronauts are tasked with holding a simple ceremony to honor the fallen—then to move on with their mission. So far we've only covered the 'easy' questions. NASA and others are still grappling with harder ones. Consider the issue of authority over a death and mortal remains. On the ISS, it's simple: the deceased astronaut's home country retains jurisdiction. But that clarity fades as destinations grow more distant and the voyages more diverse: What really happens on space-agency missions to the moon, or to Mars? How might rules change for commercial or multinational spaceflights—or, for that matter, the private space stations and interplanetary settlements that are envisioned by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other tech multibillionaires? NASA and its partners have started drafting frameworks, like the Artemis Accords—agreements signed by more than 50 nations to govern behavior in space. But even those don't address many intimate details of death. What happens, for instance, if foul play is suspected? The Outer Space Treaty, a legal document drafted in 1967 under the United Nations that is humanity's foundational set of rules for orbit and beyond, doesn't say. Of course, not everything can be planned for in advance. And NASA has done an extraordinary job of keeping astronauts in orbit alive. But as more people venture into space, and as the frontier stretches to longer voyages and farther destinations, it becomes a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone won't come home. When that happens, it won't just be a tragedy. It will be a test. A test of our systems, our ethics and our ability to adapt to a new dimension of mortality. To some, NASA's preparations for astronautical death may seem merely morbid, even silly—but that couldn't be further from the truth. Space won't care of course, whenever it claims more lives. But we will. And rising to that grim occasion with reverence, rigor and grace will define not just policy out in the great beyond—but what it means to be human there, too.
New York Post
20 hours ago
- New York Post
Failing on every front, is higher education still sustainable today?
A professor specializing in honesty, Francesca Gino — fired for dishonesty. This latest headline from trouble-plagued Harvard puts higher education's problems in a nutshell. Not only do many Americans believe higher education is elitist, but increasingly they're concluding it's also not very good at its job, or even harmful. Advertisement And with reason. Gino, a Harvard Business School behavioral scientist who studied (of all things) honesty, was stripped of tenure and fired because of academic dishonesty, the first Harvard professor so treated since the 1940s. Investigators found problems with several of her more famous studies were the result of research misconduct. Advertisement Nor is she Harvard's only problem child: Claudine Gay had to step down as the school's president amid her own plagiarism scandal. And these problems are rife throughout the academy. A Smith College commencement speaker this year even had to surrender her honorary degree when it turned out her speech had been stolen. It's not just about copying. There's also a widely acknowledged 'replication crisis': Scientists publish papers reporting results, but it's increasingly impossible for others to reproduce those results, leading to what some have called an existential crisis for research. Advertisement We're told cuts to federal spending on higher education will imperil research, but such claims would be more troubling if the 'research' were of more reliably high quality. It's an open secret that the pressure to produce a constant flood of papers that are publishable and, better yet, interesting enough to spark headlines leads to corner-cutting, 'data torture' and overclaiming — or, sometimes, outright fraud. The result is an expensive self-licking ice cream cone of grant applications and publications, but the actual contribution to human knowledge is often lacking. Of course, research isn't the only justification for higher education; we had colleges and universities long before professors saw academic publication as the major goal of their jobs. Advertisement Higher education was long justified as a way to promote our society's values and instill knowledge. College grads were supposed to understand philosophy, government, literature and human nature in ways that people without such a higher education couldn't. They were supposed to gain a deeper appreciation of our society's roots and purposes, and an ability to think critically, and to re-examine their views in the face of new evidence. This is one reason for the requirement that military officers have college degrees — a requirement that probably should be rethought: Does anyone seriously believe this is what colleges and universities teach now? An overriding theme at elite colleges — and by no means limited to them — is that Western culture is uniquely evil, white people are uniquely awful, and pretty much any crime is justifiable so long as the hands committing it are suitably brown and 'oppressed.' Meanwhile, numerous universities face federal civil-rights investigations for allowing and in some cases promoting antisemitism and violence against Jewish students. We've seen riots, violence, Jewish students surrounded and attacked on campus or forced to hide out in attics as mobs rampage through buildings. The notion that our colleges and universities are encouraging students to follow their better instincts seems unsustainable. Advertisement And how are schools doing at inculcating actual, you know, knowledge? Not so well. In a recent study, Richard Arum and Josipa Aroksa found there's not a lot of learning going on: 45% of students 'did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning' over the first two years of college; 36% failed to show any improvement over four years. The reason: Courses aren't very rigorous, and not much is required of students. Then we see things like UCLA Medical School's notorious dumbing down of admissions in the name of 'diversity.' Advertisement Though racial preferences are outlawed in California, UCLA has made its minimum requirements much less demanding in order to promote minority admissions. The result: Up to half of UCLA medical students fail basic tests of competence. The public has noticed, which is why higher education, whose position seemed unassailable not long ago, is facing successful assaults from both the Trump administration and the market. Advertisement As one wag put it on X: 'Harvard is quickly realizing that nobody outside of Harvard cares about Harvard.' Or, if they do care, they want to see it turned upside down and shaken hard. As evolutionary biologist Thomas Ray observed, 'Every successful system accumulates parasites.' American higher ed has been extraordinarily successful, and it has been parasitized by grifters, political hacks and outright terrorist sympathizers. Advertisement Now that it's lost public sympathy, it can expect a stiff dose of the salts. Good. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.
