Monthly Archives: May 2022

Read Time:2 Minute, 3 Second

Photo: pixabay.comNASA has announced the date of sending the unmanned spacecraft Orion to the Moon

NASA announced that the first unmanned flight of the Orion spacecraft to the Moon, planned as part of the Artemis program (Artemis), will take place in August 2022. This was announced by the head of the US space agency, Bill Nelson, during a hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Budget Appropriations, Interfax writes.

At the moment I'd say August. As part of a mission lasting about thirty days, all systems for unmanned flights will be tested & # 187;, & # 8212; he answered a question from a member of the commission about the launch of the mission.

It is noted that before launch, the launch vehicle must successfully pass a bench test. At the same time, specialists will simulate the procedures that will be necessary for a successful launch, check the operation of systems, interfaces and software.

It is known that on March 18 this year, a 98-meter SLS rocket with the Orion spacecraft was taken out of vertical assembly shop to launch pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center. But the test has not yet taken place due to a number of technical problems.

As part of the Artemis 1 Orion mission, it will head towards the Moon and stay in its orbit for several weeks. After that, he will return to Earth. The descent capsule will splash down in the Atlantic.

As part of the Artemis 2 mission, a crew of four astronauts will go to the Moon. This flight is scheduled for 2024. Then Orion should fly around the natural satellite of the Earth and also splash down in the Atlantic.

As part of the Artemis 3 mission, American astronauts are scheduled to land on the moon.

Note that the Artemis program became known to the public in September 2020 . Her goal is the return of American astronauts to the lunar surface in 2025, as it was 50 years ago, as well as the construction of a near-lunar station and preparation of conditions for the possible colonization of the Moon.

Recall that the agreement on participation in the Artemis program was signed on October 15, 2020 8 countries USA, UK, Italy, Canada, Australia, Japan, United Arab Emirates and Luxembourg. Ukraine has also joined the program.

Natasha Kumar has been a reporter on the news desk since 2018. Before that she wrote about young adolescence and family dynamics for Styles and was the legal affairs correspondent for the Metro desk. Before joining The Times Hub, Natasha Kumar worked as a staff writer at the Village Voice and a freelancer for Newsday, The Wall Street Journal, GQ and Mirabella. To get in touch, contact me through my natasha@timeshub.in

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

Visit link:
NASA has announced the date of sending the unmanned spacecraft Orion to the Moon - The Times Hub

Yoon may have intended that trip to set the first button for smoother future relations, but two 2018 South Korean Supreme Court decisions suggest that the problem goes back to 1965. Those verdicts directly challenged Japans interpretation of the 1965 Claims Agreement, the foundation for post-war Japan-South Korea relations. How the two countries resolve this fundamental issue will impact not only the future of bilateral relations but also the success of the United States Indo-Pacific strategy. The potential ways forward, however, appear bleak without an extraordinary shift in position from Tokyo, Seoul, or both. President Joe Bidens trip to the region in late May presents an important opportunity for Washington to nudge its allies toward a resolution.

In 1997, two South Korean plaintiffs filed suit in Japan against Nippon Steel Corporation for forced labor that occurred during World War II when Japan ruled over Korea. They argued that they were recruited under false advertisement, were not paid their due wages and were subjected to unsafe working conditions. The lower court dismissed the suit in 2001, and the Japanese Supreme Court denied the final appeal in 2003. The courts held that, while the company (described here as Old Nippon Steel, later reorganized into Nippon Steel) mistreated the plaintiffs as they described, Nippon Steel did not carry Old Nippon Steels liability. The courts added that, in any case, the plaintiffs claims were extinguished by the 1965 Claims Agreement. The plaintiffs later pressed the same claims in South Korea, where lower courts in 2009 also dismissed the suit, citing the Japanese rulings and the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Since 2001, the Japanese government has reiterated its courts argument regarding the victims claims. The government asserts that under Article I of the Claims Agreement, Japan was required to provide South Korea with $300 million in grants and $200 million in loans, and that under Article II, the problem concerning property, rights and interests as well as claims between the two countries and their nationals were settled completely and finally and no contention could be made regarding those claims. Some scholars have noted that the scope of these claims also encompassed the eight items explicitly raised by South Korea during the Claims Agreement negotiations, one of which related to amounts receivable, compensation, and other rights of claim of drafted South Korean workers.

However, the 2005 release by then-South Korean President Roh Moo-hyuns administration of the Claims Agreement negotiation records led to a different interpretation. A private-public commissions review of the records found that the agreement was not primarily intended to address reparations for Japanese colonial rule, but rather to settle the financial and civil claims and debt relations between the two countries pursuant to Article IV of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. In other words, unlike Japans treaties with other countries like Indonesia, China and Myanmar after World War II, which used the word reparations to address the damage and suffering caused by Japan, the Claims Agreement was silent on any wrongdoing and, therefore, meant only to address the settlement of credit and debt relations, such as insurance and deposits. The commission added that, because the Japanese government refused to recognize any legal obligation to provide reparations for forced labor, the Korean government pursued political compensation based on the historical fact of losses from affliction.

Commentators have explained that the two governments at the time negotiated the Claims Agreement to be ambiguous on key issues including how to characterize Japans colonization of Korea (legal versus illegal), which claims were being settled (government versus individual claims, torts against humanity) and what the money was for (economic assistance versus reparations) so that the two sides could normalize relations, secure economic benefits and go back to their people and tell two different stories. The commission also underscored that the South Korean government had a moral responsibility to use a considerable portion of the Japanese funds it received from the agreement to compensate the forced labor victims, but that the compensation payments made between 1975 and 1977 were inadequate. This finding led the Roh administration to enact additional compensation legislation in 2007.

The reassessment of the 1965 agreement ultimately led to a major shift in South Korean court decisions. In landmark rulings in May 2012, the South Korean Supreme Court decided that the individual claims against Nippon Steel Corporation (and the claims of another group of plaintiffs against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) were not extinguished by the agreement. Underscoring that Japans colonization of Korea was illegal, the court rejected the lower courts deference to Japanese verdicts because it would violate South Koreas constitution. The court also drew on the commissions findings to hold that the agreements failure to acknowledge the illegality of Japanese colonialism meant that it was merely a political agreement to settle economic and debt relations between the two countries, rather than compensation for Japans illegal occupation. Lastly, the court held that the statute of limitations for raising claims had not expired due to legal obstacles that prevented the plaintiffs from exercising their right to raise claims. After the cases were remanded, the lower courts ordered the two Japanese companies to compensate the South Korean plaintiffs.

In late 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court affirmed the damages awards and reaffirmed its previous ruling that the agreement did not extinguish individuals claims for reparations. The court stated that Article I, which described the Japanese governments payment, said nothing about the specific purpose of the payment other than being conducive to the economic development of the Republic of Korea, and had no relation to the claims described under Article II. Even Japans position at the time, the court noted, was that the payment was only for economic assistance and not reparations. Most importantly, the court characterized the plaintiffs claims as seeking compensation for emotional suffering caused by the Japanese corporations unlawful acts rather than for lost wages to ensure that the claims fell out of the agreements scope concerning property, rights and interests. Using this logic, some scholars have also argued that the eight items raised by South Korean negotiators in 1965 also did not include mental harm.

The 2018 court decision quickly created a fissure in bilateral ties. In July 2019, Tokyo imposed tighter export controls on chemicals used by South Korean manufacturers to produce semiconductors and removed South Korea from its white list of preferred trading partners. Although Japan attributed this move to security concerns based on South Koreas inadequate management of the chemicals, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe admitted that the 2018 court decision was the primary reason. South Korea countered with its own measures, including dropping Japan from its white list, initiating dispute resolution proceedings at the World Trade Organization over the export controls and threatening termination of the bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement.

Since then, South Korean lower courts have muddied the waters by producing contradictory rulings (legal precedents are not binding in South Koreas civil law judicial system). In three cases last year, the Seoul Central District Court decided against South Korean laborers. That same year, however, district courts in Daejeon and Daegu approved the sale of Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel assets to allow South Korean victims to collect. In April 2022, the Daejeon District Court ordered the sale of a Mitsubishi patent to compensate a forced labor victim. With the South Korean Supreme Courts dismissals of Mitsubishis appeals in the first Daejeon case in September and December 2021 and the likelihood that the Seoul Central District Courts decisions will be reversed based on the 2018 decision, the Japanese side appears to be running out of legal recourses.

There are several potential paths forward regarding the forced labor claims, though none are encouraging. The Japanese companies have already rejected the first option of abiding by the South Korean Supreme Courts decisions and compensating the victims. With many similar lawsuits pending in South Korea, complying with the courts decisions could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in additional liabilities for Japanese companies. More important, this move would be tantamount to admitting that Japans colonization of Korea was illegal.

A second path would uphold Japans position but require a political, legislative or judicial act by South Korea that undermines or supersedes its supreme courts rulings. This type of move is possible but would be unpopular in South Korea and kick the victims rights can down the road. In addition, if a judicial act is perceived as politically driven for example, former South Korean Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae was arrested in 2019 on charges of delaying a final verdict on the laborer cases it could diminish the integrity of South Koreas judicial independence.

In 2019, then-South Korean President Moon Jae-ins government sought a third path that could satisfy Japans concerns while also not undermining the 2018 court rulings. It proposed establishing a joint fund managed by the two governments using voluntary contributions from South Korean and Japanese companies to compensate the victims. This fund would resemble the mechanism that Germany, amid a wave of lawsuits in U.S. courts against German companies, devised in 2000 to compensate former Nazi-era forced laborers. Japan rejected Moons proposal arguing that all claims had already been settled. It also felt chagrined by Moons dismantling of a similar fund created in 2015 to address the concerns of Korean comfort women women who were forced to work in brothels run by the Japanese military before and during World War II. The Yoon administration could also propose a joint fund, but it will need to ensure the Japanese governments buy-in and that victims concerns are addressed.

A fourth potential path is arbitration. Article III of the Claims Agreement calls for any disputes that cannot be settled through diplomatic channels to be referred to an arbitration board. Japan initially sought arbitration in 2019, but South Korea demurred as it tried to exhaust diplomatic solutions that would address the victims claims with greater certainty. Today, with no diplomatic solution in sight, the two sides could still choose to pursue arbitration as a legally binding option. However, the risk of a negative ruling remains for both sides. Another legal recourse would be to pursue a decision by the International Court of Justice, but South Korea would first need to accept the courts jurisdiction.

The most controversial, and least likely, option would be to revise the Claims Agreement. This path would be a nonstarter for Japan, and perhaps South Korea as well, but it could offer potential benefits. Rather than cede control of the agreements interpretation to arbitration boards or domestic judicial systems, this approach would afford both governments equal agency and responsibility to directly confront and resolve the 1965 agreements fundamental flaws for some, ensuring that the bilateral relationships first button finally finds its correct place.

Absent any of the five measures above, the situation will worsen. South Korean courts will allow Japanese companies assets to be seized and liquidated; the Japanese government will retaliate, prompting South Korean countermeasures; bilateral tensions will fester; and the Northeast Asian link in the latticework of the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy will grow weaker.

U.S. leadership can help avoid this outcome. Strengthening U.S. alliances in the region is one of the Biden administrations highest foreign policy priorities. Washington will want to avoid the appearance of meddling or favoritism, but the history of South Korea-Japan relations shows that the United States has always weighed in discreetly, and sometimes openly, with considerable influence. In 2014, then U.S. President Barack Obama called the comfort women tragedy a terrible, egregious violation of human rights and encouraged Japan to recognize the past honestly and fairly. The current environment may be amenable to similar prodding since both Yoon and Kishida will be more flexible on this issue than their predecessors.

When Biden meets the two leaders, improving South Korea-Japan relations must be one of the top agenda items. The fund proposal may be the best option because it allows both governments to influence the outcome and, if designed well, the victims concerns to be settled. A sustainable solution requires addressing the victims claims and grievances in a fundamental and comprehensive way.

Sang-ok Park is a former justice on the South Korean Supreme Court.

See the rest here:
South Korea and Japan Need to Reset Relations. Can the United States Help? - United States Institute of Peace

Thanks to Magee for this suggestion.

History - Detonating a thermonuclear weapon on the moon? It sounds like the bizarro scheme of a deranged comic-book villainnot a project initiated inside the U.S. government.

But in 1958, as the Cold Warspace racewas heating up, the U.S. Air Force launched just such an endeavor. Called Project A119, it harnessed the talents of some of Americas top scientists.

How could this happen?

Blame Sputnik, the beach-ball-sized satellite slung into space by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, which jolted U.S. officials and citizens alike into a state of high alert. As the two Cold War superpowers duked it out for postwar world dominanceframed by many as a titanic struggle between freedom and tyrannythe prospect of Americas arch-enemy gaining any measure of military-industrial advantage seemed chilling indeed.

So the United States needed to reclaim the narrative and prove to the world that it hadnt lost the space race before it had even begun. Americans needed a reassuring sign that the Communists didnt have a permanent upper handand that Sputnik wouldnt soon be followed by Soviet nuclear missiles raining down onto U.S. soil.

America needed to show the world it was squarely in the race. And it needed something biglike nuking the moon. Never mind that the project had no practical purpose, no discernible national-security goals and its sole design was to show the world that the U.S.A. could do something ambitiously spectacular.

Sometime before May 1958, the U.S. Air Force asked the ARF team to investigate something truly out of the ordinary: the visibility and effects of a hypothetical nuclear explosion on the moon. The Air Force wanted to surprise the Soviets and the world: Hey, look at what we can do. We can blow the hell out of the moon.

But it wasnt just fear that inspired physicists, chemists, biologists, astrophysicists and others to join university laboratories, private industries or government institutions working on aerospace and defense research. Many of these scientists were patriots. Some were WWII refugees who had seen tyranny firsthandand barely escaped it. They, too, believed in what they were doing. The Cold War was a fight to the deathor at least for the future of the free world. These men and women had a skill set that was integral to national, and potentially global, security.

The program was ultimately scrappedbut the final reason is still unclear. All we have is speculation from multiple (knowledgeable) sources. Some say the Air Force canceled the program because of the potential danger to people on earth (in case the mission catastrophically failed the way so many of the early U.S. attempts at spaceflight sadlyand sometimes humorouslydid). Others say the scientists were concerned about contaminating the moon with radioactive material, preventing any future mission to land a man on the surface (or even lunar colonization). Or it could be that the mission was scrapped out of a worry that the best-laid P.R. plans of the Air Force would be thwarted when the public saw this as an abhorrent defacement of the moons beauty instead of a demonstration of American scientific prowess.

Original post:
Watch This When You're High - Why The Air Force Almost Blasted The Moon With An H Bomb - Barstool Sports

After the success of "Star Wars," everyone was looking for the next big sci-fi blockbuster, and the Walt Disney Company was no exception. Nearly 35 years before they'd simply buy the whole enterprise, Disney tried their hand at their own outer space adventure, and the result was the 1979 adventure "Black Hole." Starring Maximillian Schell, Joseph Bottoms, Anthony Perkins, and Robert Forster, the movie follows the crew of the USS Palomino, on a deep space exploratory mission when they encounter an older starship, the USS Cygnus, thought lost 20 years before.

Now orbiting a black hole, they find one man aboard:Dr. Reinhardt, one of Earth's most brilliant minds, who says he's the last man alive after the ship became damaged. Along with a crew of human-like robot drones he claims to have built himself, he has continued to study the titular black hole. But while exploring the Cygnus, the crew of the Palomino realizes that Reinhardt is hiding something, and there's more to his robot army than meets the eye. A surprisingly disturbing sci-fi adventure for a Disney picture, never became as well known as "Star Wars," nor did it ever become it spawn a franchise, but thanks to its impressive special effects and intriguing story it has since become a cult classic.

Read more:
30 Most Underrated Space Movies You Need To Watch - Looper