Soviet-era spacecraft plunges to Earth after 53 years stuck in orbit
A Soviet-era spacecraft plunged to Earth on Saturday, more than a half-century after its failed launch to Venus.
Its uncontrolled entry was confirmed by both the Russian Space Agency and European Union Space Surveillance and Tracking. The Russians indicated it came down over the Indian Ocean, but some experts were not so sure of the precise location. The European Space Agency's space debris office also tracked the spacecraft's doom after it failed to appear over a German radar station.
It was not immediately known how much, if any, of the half-ton spacecraft survived the fiery descent from orbit. Experts said ahead of time that some if not all of it might come crashing down, given it was built to withstand a landing on Venus, the solar system's hottest planet.
The chances of anyone getting clobbered by spacecraft debris were exceedingly low, scientists said.
Launched in 1972 by the Soviet Union, the spacecraft known as Kosmos 482 was part of a series of missions bound for Venus. But this one never made it out of orbit around Earth, stranded there by a rocket malfunction.
Much of the spacecraft came tumbling back to Earth within a decade of the failed launch. No longer able to resist gravity's tug as its orbit dwindled, the spherical lander — an estimated 3 feet (1 meter) across — was the last part of the spacecraft to come down. The lander was encased in titanium, according to experts, and weighed more than 1,000 pounds (495 kilograms).
Any surviving wreckage will belong to Russia under a United Nations treaty.
After following the spacecraft's downward spiral, scientists, military experts and others could not pinpoint in advance precisely when or where the spacecraft might come down. Solar activity added to the uncertainty as well as the spacecraft's deteriorating condition after so long in space.
After so much anticipation, some observers were disappointed by the lingering uncertainty over the exact whereabouts of the spacecraft's grave.
'If it was over the Indian Ocean, only the whales saw it,' Dutch scientist Marco Langbroek said via X.
As of Saturday afternoon, the U.S. Space Command had yet to confirm the spacecraft's demise as it collected and analyzed data from orbit.
The U.S. Space Command routinely monitors dozens of reentries each month. What set Kosmos 482 apart — and earned it extra attention from government and private space trackers — was that it was more likely to survive reentry, according to officials.
It was also coming in uncontrolled, without any intervention by flight controllers who normally target the Pacific and other vast expanses of water for old satellites and other space debris.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Viking's silver treasure, an ancient Korean crown and three more discoveries
The summaries below were drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All linked stories were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists. Throughout history, cultures have left behind a trail of breadcrumbs for archaeologists to follow. New sites and artifacts are found all the time, revealing forgotten secrets of the past. Here are some of the latest discoveries: 1,400-year-old crown — still decorated with insect wings — found in South Korea In Gyeongju, South Korea, archaeologists uncovered a 1,400-year-old crown adorned with jewel beetle wings from the Silla Kingdom. This ornate crown, found in a burial site, is a first-of-its-kind discovery in the region. The crown's intricate decorations, including gold beads and jade pieces, highlight the craftsmanship of the era. | Published May 22 | Read More | Hobbyist studying old map notices odd mark that leads to medieval find in Sweden In Derome, Sweden, a hobby archaeologist discovered the remains of a medieval monastery using an 18th-century map and modern technology. The site, likely dating back to the late 12th century, revealed thick walls and pillar foundations. This find sheds light on the region's monastic history and the Order of Cistercians. | Published May 22 | Read More | Students locate ancient Roman army camp beyond empire's northern border. See it In the Netherlands, university students discovered a rare ancient Roman military camp beyond the empire's northern border. Using computer models and LiDAR surveys, they confirmed the presence of Roman walls and a moat near Hoog Buurlo. | Published May 28 | Read More | Viking-era silver treasures found on farm in Sweden and restored. See them shine In Täby, Sweden, archaeologists unearthed a collection of Viking-era silver treasures, including arm rings, necklaces and coin pendants. The site, occupied for 500 years, also revealed structures from the Viking Age. The silver collection is notable for its size and preservation. | Published May 30 | Read More | Ancient waste shows surprising 'luxury' food item was not only for Roman elite In Pollentia, Mallorca, researchers found evidence of thrushes, a luxury food item, being sold by street vendors in ancient Rome. The discovery in a cesspit challenges the belief that thrushes were exclusive to elite banquets. This find suggests that thrushes were a common part of the urban diet in Roman times. | Published June 3 | Read More | McClatchy News continues to follow the discovery of intriguing archaeological discoveries from around the globe. Check back to see the latest finds.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Axios
13 hours ago
- Axios
Trump-Musk split exposes how reliant NASA has become on SpaceX
Elon Musk 's threat Thursday to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft would haveleft NASA reliant on Russian capsules to get its astronauts into space. Why it matters: Musk's rift with President Trump exposes how reliant NASA has become on a single private sector partner to reach the International Space Station after ending the space shuttle program in 2011. Musk eventually walked back the threat Thursday, but it demonstrates how critical SpaceX is to the American space program. Catch up quick: The feud between the president and world's richest man exploded into public view Thursday after Musk criticized Trump's flagship spending bill. Trump subsequently threatened to cut all of Musk's government contracts, and Musk retaliated by threatening to mothball SpaceX's Dragon. It's an acrimonious ending to Musk's tenure in the White House. State of play: The Dragon spacecraft can carry up to seven passengers into orbit, according to the SpaceX website. "It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth, and is the first private spacecraft to take humans to the space station," the website said. Between 2011 when the space shuttle program ended and 2020 when the Dragon entered service, American astronauts relied on other countries to reach space, particularly Russia. The Dragon has completed 51 missions and 46 visits to the ISS, per SpaceX. Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only other way for crews to reach the space station, per AP. Each Soyuz launch carries two Russians and one NASA astronaut. Every SpaceX launch carries one Russian. Flashback: NASA in 2014 awarded contracts to SpaceX and Boeing to transport crews to the ISS. Boeing's Starliner, though, experienced significant setbacks and left astronauts stranded on its first crewed test flight. Zoom out: While NASA relies on SpaceX for its astronauts, other companies including Northrop Grumman and the United Launch Alliance successfully transport cargo to the ISS and launch satellites.
