What to Know About the Soviet Spacecraft Plunging to Earth
Time was, the Soviet Union fairly owned Venus. From 1961 to 1983, the U.S.'s old space race rival launched 16 probes, Venera 1 through Venera 16, that either flew by, orbited, or landed on Venus—with three of them failing en route. It's been decades since the Russians bothered with Venus, but this week, an artifact from that long-ago space program may very well bother us: Sometime between May 9 and May 11, an 1,100-lb Venus spacecraft known as Kosmos 482, which has been stuck in Earth orbit since 1972, will come crashing back to the ground, potentially threatening anyone on Earth living between 52° North and 52° South of the equator—which covers the overwhelming share of us. Here's what you need to know.
Kosmos 482 was originally intended to be known as Venera 9. It was launched on March 31, 1972, just four days after its sister probe, Venera 8. That ship had a brief but glorious life. It arrived at Venus on July 22, 1972, spent close to an hour descending through the atmosphere, and landed at 6:24 a.m. local Venus time. (Local time on another world is calculated the same way it is on Earth—by measuring the angle of the sun relative to the meridians, or lines of longitude.)
Once on the ground, Venera 8 lived for only 63 minutes, which is about what was expected given Venus's hellish conditions. The atmospheric pressure is 93 times greater than it is on Earth, with a sea level pressure of 1,350 pounds per square inch (psi) compared to just 14.7 psi here. The air is mostly carbon dioxide, which, together with Venus's greater proximity to the sun, means an average temperature 860°F—or more than 200 degrees hotter than the melting point of lead.
That was the future that awaited Venera 9 too, but things didn't work out for what turned out to be a snakebit ship. After reaching Earth orbit, it fired its engine to enter what is known as a Venus transfer trajectory; that engine burn went awry, however, either cutting off too soon or not reaching a sufficient thrust to send the spacecraft on its way. Instead, it remained in an elliptical Earth orbit, with an apogee, or high point, of 560 miles, and a perigee, or low point, of 130 miles. There it has remained for the past 53 years. For its pains, Venera 9 lost not only its mission but its name. Abiding by Soviet-era nomenclature rules, spacecraft that remain in orbit around the Earth are dubbed Kosmos, followed by a number—in this case, Kosmos 482.
In 2022, Marco Langbroek, a Dutch archaeologist who toggled over to sky watching mid-career and now lectures on space situational awareness at The Netherlands' Delft Technical University, completed a round of tracking Kosmos 482's orbit. In The Space Review, he wrote that the object would reenter Earth's atmosphere sometime in 2025 or 2026, due to the steady accumulation of drag by the atmosphere's upper reaches. Further tracking of the spacecraft's trajectory—by Langbroek, NASA, and the nonprofit Aerospace Corporation—now predicts the reentry will occur on May 10, at 12:42 a.m., plus or minus 19 hours.
'The reentry is an uncontrolled reentry,' Langbroek wrote on his website on April 24. 'It likely will be a hard impact. I doubt the parachute deployment system will still work after 53 years and with dead batteries.'
Medallion which was delivered to the surface of planet Venus by the soviet space probe Venera 3 on March 1, 1966.
Universal Images Group—Getty
Ordinarily, even a spacecraft as big as Kosmos 482 would not pose much danger to people on the ground. The same atmospheric friction that causes most meteors to burn up before they reach the surface disposes of errant satellites the same way. It is mostly far larger objects, like the U.S.'s Skylab space station—which reentered in July, 1979, scattering debris across the Australian outback—that cause concern. But Kosmos 482 is different; it was intentionally designed to withstand Venus's pressure-cooker atmosphere, and even colliding with our own atmosphere at orbital speeds of 17,500 miles per hour, it could at least partly survive its plunge.
'The risks involved are not particularly high, but not zero,' Langbroek writes. 'With a mass of just under 500 kg and 1-meter size, risks are somewhat similar to that of a meteorite impact.'
All of the land masses in Earth's southern hemisphere are within the reentry footprint, along with the large majority of the north. Most of Russia, the U.K. the Balkans, Scandinavia, Canada, and Alaska are among the few places out of harm's way.
Still, nobody is recommending calling the pets inside and crouching in fallout shelters. More than 70% of the Earth's surface is water, meaning a 70% chance of a splashdown as opposed to a hard landing. What's more, the landmasses in the reentry zone include largely unpopulated areas like the Sahara, Atacama, and Australian deserts.
It would, of course, be best if Kosmos 482 disintegrates entirely on reentry, but space sentimentalists are hoping that at least a bit of it survives. Venera probes, like all of the Soviet spacecraft sent to the moon and the planets, carried along with them small memorial coins, medals and titanium pennants—embossed with the hammer and sickle, the likeness of Lenin, the Earth, and more. Kosmos 482 will return to a world very different from the one it left—with the Soviet Union itself consigned to history. This week, after more than half a century, a bit of commemorative metal just may survive the empire that sent it aloft.
Write to Jeffrey Kluger at jeffrey.kluger@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WIRED
5 hours ago
- WIRED
What Is the Electric Constant and Why Should You Care?
Aug 17, 2025 7:00 AM The force between electrical charges is kind of a big deal—without it, the universe would be a primordial soup and you would not exist. That force is determined by the electric constant. Photograph: Cappan/Getty Images It's fun to think about the fundamental physical constants. These are special values used in our models of the physical universe. They include things like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and Planck's constant, and they're 'fundamental' in the sense that we can't derive them theoretically, we can only measure them. We use these in solving physics problems all the time, so it's easy to take them for granted. But why are there such numbers in nature, and why do they just happen to have those specific values? Because, listen, if they were only slightly different, the universe might be incapable of supporting life. Did some cosmic clockmaker set these parameters? Isaac Newton thought so. One of the most basic of these numbers is the electric constant, k. It's a value that lets us calculate the forces between electric charges. That's a big deal when you consider that all matter is made of just three things—electrons, neutrons, and protons, two of which have an electric charge. The interaction between electrons is what forms molecules to create you and everything around you. Otherwise it would all be just some undifferentiated soup. But how do we know the value of the electric constant? Also, what does it have to do with other fundamental constants? And for that matter, is it really fundamental? Let's investigate. Coulomb's Law and Constant When we say something has an electric charge, we mean it has a different number of protons and electrons. If your clothes dryer removes some electrons from your socks, they become positively charged. If they gain electrons, they'll be negatively charged. (Note: You can't take away protons, since they're in the nucleus of the atom. It would involve a nuclear reaction, which nobody wants.) If you have two objects with opposite charges, they attract. If they have the same charge, they repel. Here's a demo you can do yourself: Take a piece of clear tape and place it on a smooth table. Then put a second piece on top of that one, and pull them off together. Now, if you separate them, one will be positive and one will be negative; hold them in proximity and they will bend toward each other. If you repeat the process, you'll have two positive and two negative tapes. Hold two with similar charges near each other, and you'll see that they repel, like in the picture below: The smaller the distance between the tapes, the greater the repelling force. If you increase the charge on either (or both) tapes, the force will also get stronger. In 1785, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb modeled this electrostatic force, so we call it Coulomb's law. This is a famous equation that every chemistry and physics student learns. It looks like this: Here two objects are separated by a distance r. The values of their charges are q 1 and q 2 in units of, well, coulombs . In order to get the force in newtons, the standard unit for measuring a force (F), we need a constant of proportionality—that's k—the electric constant, also known as Coulomb's constant. In these units it has a value of k = 8.987 x 109 nm2/C2 (newton-meters squared per coulomb squared … don't worry about it). That's a big number, and it shows how strong electric interactions are—much stronger, in fact, than gravitational interactions. Surprised? It's not something you notice, because all objects contain both positive and negative charges at the molecular level, so they have a roughly equal number of attractive and repulsive forces that mostly cancel. The gravitational interaction that keeps you pinned to the Earth is more obvious because it involves only an attractive force (you can't have negative mass), and because we are puny specks on a giant rock. How He Got It To come up with this, Coulomb made an instrument called a torsion balance. It had a thin horizontal rod hanging from a fiber so it could rotate freely—all contained in a glass cylinder to shield it from errant breezes. Then he had two small metal balls, one stationary and one on the end of the rod (plus a counterweight on the other end so it balanced). He then gave the two balls similar charges so they repelled, and he measured the deflection of the rod. Then, to vary the charges, he took one ball and touched it to an identical but uncharged ball, cutting its charge in half, and he remeasured. The rod moved away half as far. This showed that the electric force (F) was proportional to the product of the charges (q 1 q 2 ). Then, by varying the distance between the balls he found that F was inversely proportional to the distance squared (r2). That meant, e.g., that an attractive force between two charges grows very fast as they get closer to each other (i.e., as r gets smaller). But how did he find the magical number k? You won't like this answer, but Coulomb didn't know the value of Coulomb's constant—which meant he couldn't quantify the electric force (F). All he could say was that it was all proportional. His problem was that there was no way at the time to measure electrical charges. There were no coulombs in Coulomb's day. But by running similar experiments over time, later scientists gradually zeroed in on the value of the electric constant, which we now know is k = 8.987 x 109 nm2/C2. The Permittivity of Free Space We could stop there, but hey, science never stops. You know that. It turns out there's another constant that is related to Coulomb's constant. We call it the ' permittivity of free space' (ε 0 ), which sure sounds like fun. It tells us how hard it is to create an electric field in a vacuum. A smaller ε 0 , or lower permittivity, would mean you'd get a greater electric field from the same charge. Yes, that seems backwards, but it's just how they defined it. It's too late to change. Is there a permittivity value for nonempty space too? Yup. We call that the dielectric permittivity (ε), and it depends on the type of material. For example, it's harder to generate an electric field in water than it is in glass, so water has a higher ε. With this permittivity constant, we can rewrite Coulomb's law as the following: All I've done is replace k with ¼πε 0 , where ε 0 = 8.854 x 10–12 C2/(nm2). That might seem like a pointless digression. But this enables us to do something pretty wonderful: We can create relationships with other fundamental constants. In particular, there's a very cool relationship between permittivity (ε 0 )and the speed of light (c). Here, the Greek letter mu, μ 0 , is the magnetic constant, aka the permeability of free space. I'm going to do a whole other piece next week on this one, so stay tuned. For now, suffice it to say that both constants are in there because light is an electromagnetic wave. This relationship holds for non-empty space too, where light has to travel through a medium like, say, water. But both constants would be much higher, which means light would travel much slower in water. Remember when I said up top that physics constants were 'fundamental'—they couldn't be derived, only measured empirically? Well, as you can see, that wasn't entirely true. The equation above places a constraint on these three particular constants, so we only need to measure two of them, and then we can compute the third. If we know the speed of light and the permeability, we can derive the permittivity and by extension the electric constant, k. I know that sounds crazy, but at some point you have to realize that all of our units and constants are arbitrary. We have to pick some place to start finding values and then build our units like a house of cards. If you change one of them, the whole thing comes crashing down.


Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Is Artificial Intelligence Dumbing Down Cancer Doctors?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Doctors who rely on artificial intelligence (AI) may be unintentionally deskilling, according to a new study. The study, published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, suggests that the growing reliance on AI in medical procedures may diminish doctors' diagnostic skills. Researchers found that endoscopists—physicians who perform colonoscopies—were significantly less effective at detecting precancerous polyps without AI assistance after becoming accustomed to using the technology. In tests conducted across four endoscopy centers in Poland, experienced clinicians used AI to assist with polyp detection. Afterward, colonoscopies were alternately performed with or without AI. Stock image: Composite depicting a professional using artificial intelligence. Stock image: Composite depicting a professional using artificial intelligence. Photo by Roman Shashko / Getty Images Concerningly, the detection rate fell from 28.4% to 22.4%. "We have to admit that we were not expecting to find out such a big difference in quality parameters of colonoscopy," Dr. Marcin Romańczyk of the Academy of Silesia, one of the lead study authors, told Newsweek in an email. Why It Matters Colonoscopies are a primary method for preventing colorectal cancer by identifying and removing adenomas. AI systems designed to improve this process have shown promise in increasing the diagnostic rate in real time. However, the study's findings could show that doctors who are overly reliant on AI tools might experience a deskilling effect in which clinicians gradually lose proficiency in recognizing polyps unaided. "On one side, AI usage is becoming standard of care," Romańczyk told Newsweek. "On the other hand, we are aware that we can not correctly state how our behavior has been modified by its usage." What to Know The drop in performance was not attributed to fatigue or lack of training. According to the study, all participants were highly experienced, and AI was the only modifiable factor among them. "I think that our findings, regardless of the fact that they were a surprise for us, can be explained by other uses of new technology," Romańczyk told Newsweek. "I don't personally feel confident anymore traveling on my own without any software assistance to an exact spot in another city, even within my region, because I've got used to using online map systems. "As we find that it can be reproduced on other examples, we find it crucial to investigate this field more broadly in the future." What People Are Saying In a commentary published alongside the study, University College London's Dr. Omer Ahmad wrote, "These findings temper the current enthusiasm for rapid adoption of AI-based technologies [...] and highlight the importance of carefully considering possible unintended clinical consequences." What's Next The authors of the study called for further research into how AI may influence the abilities of doctors in other fields. They also stressed the need for solutions to prevent skill decay, including revised training protocols or limits on continuous AI use. "In our opinion, usage of AI is inevitable, and we should do our best to be prepared as well as possible to achieve the best outcomes from AI assistance," Romańczyk concluded.


Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Scientists Calculate Odds of City-Killer-Size Asteroid Hitting Earth
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. An asteroid is the most likely reason the dinosaurs went extinct—but could something similar happen to us? A new study has compared the likelihood of a devastating asteroid impact to other causes of death, revealing some surprising results about our chances of being struck in our lifetime. The research, set to be published in The Planetary Science Journal, aims to put these cosmic risks into a clearer perspective and highlight the importance of planetary defense initiatives. An asteroid approaching planet Earth. An asteroid approaching planet Earth. buradaki/Getty Images The Odds of a Killer Asteroid In their study, physicist professor Carrie Nugent of the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts and her colleagues simulated the orbits of five million near-Earth objects (NEOs) with diameters greater than 140 meters. By tracking potential Earth impacts over 150 years, they were able to calculate the frequency of such events. The authors found that the chance of an asteroid greater than 140 meters hitting the Earth is more likely than both the chance of an individual being struck by lightning—or attacked by a coyote. Analysis also revealed that the estimated impact frequency for NEOs larger than 140 meters is about one every 11,000 years. According to the researchers, the work provides a framework for policymakers to "prioritize planetary defense and encourage funding for asteroid detection and deflection missions if need be." What Would Happen if an Asteroid Hit Earth? The effects of an asteroid impact would vary widely, depending on several factors, including its size, where it lands and its velocity. The researchers said that a 140−200 meter NEO landing in the ocean may have zero fatalities, while a slightly larger one has the chance of affecting one million people if it hits a highly populated area. Even larger NEOs would affect the entire world if they hit. Even if a NEO were to strike Earth, the researchers noted, "there is still a good chance that most people would survive if it were on the smaller end." The Case for Planetary Defense The study is not meant to fuel fears but to provide a clear argument for planetary defense by putting the risks of asteroid impacts into context. The researchers pointed to NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission, which proved that humans can design spacecraft capable of deflecting asteroids. A recent report from the National Academies explored planetary defense, the researchers noted, adding: "The committee considers work on this problem as insurance, with the premiums devoted wholly toward preventing the tragedy." This perspective ultimately frames the effort not as simply a response to an imminent threat—but as an essential safeguard for the future of the planet. Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about asteroids? Let us know via science@ Reference Nugent, C. R., Andersen, K. P., Bauer, J. M., Jensen, C. T., Kristiansen, L. K., Hansen, C. P., Nielsen, M. M., & Vestergård, C. F. (2025). Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context. The Planetary Science Journal, 6(8), 190.