Catégorie : English

  • Blown up satellite – National Geographic

    Blown up satellite – National Geographic

    – National Geographic, published November 16, 2021,

    Early on November 15 astronauts aboard the International Space Station received an unexpected directive: Seek shelter in your docked spacecraft in case of a catastrophic collision. The station was about to pass through a freshly created cloud of orbital debris that posed a significant risk to the seven space travelers on board.

    Four NASA astronauts, who had arrived just last week retreated, to their SpaceX Dragon capsule, while Russia’s two cosmonauts and another NASA astronaut took cover in their Soyuz spacecraft. They stayed inside these orbital lifeboats for about two hours, then repeated the exercise roughly 90 minutes later, as the station again passed through the new debris cloud. NASA has since canceled a handful of planned activities, warning that the schedule would be in flux.

    “It’s a crazy way to start a mission,” mission control told the crew during a briefing.

    The U.S. State Department later confirmed that the debris endangering the space station was produced when Russia tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon and intentionally destroyed one of its own defunct satellites. The impact left behind hundreds of thousands of debris objects that now pose a risk to the ISS crew and other satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO).

    “Even though we know they have this capability, we were shocked that they chose to test it as they did,” says Kaitlyn Johnson, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The test shredded a satellite whose orbit intersects with the path of the ISS, putting the humans on board, including Russian cosmonauts, at risk.

    “The things rumbling around my mind are: Why now? What is this tied to? What message are they trying to send? And why that specific satellite?” she says.

    The Russian defense ministry has since released a statement confirming the test but denying any risk to the space station: “The U.S. knows for certain that the resulting fragments, in terms of test time and orbital parameters, did not and will not pose a threat to orbital stations, spacecraft and space activities.”

    At this point, it’s not clear whether Roscosmos, Russia’s space agency, knew about the test in advance. In several interviews, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said he had reason to believe that Roscosmos hadn’t been informed, noting that “they’re probably just as appalled as we are.”

    Although this demonstration came as a surprise, it isn’t the first time that anti-satellite weapons tests have produced dangerous debris in orbit. We break down what happened during the latest test, how it could affect the ISS and other satellites, and the history of weapons designed to take out objects in space.

    OK, so what exactly happened?

    Initially the source of the debris was unclear, with only circumstantial evidence that an ASAT weapon was involved. Russia had issued a NOTAM—a notice to airmen—warning them to keep out of the airspace above the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, a facility on the country’s northern coast that’s known for launching these types of missiles.

    “Those particular warning zones are very characteristic. We only see them when Russia is going to be testing its Nudol anti-satellite weapon,” says Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who also studies populations of objects orbiting Earth. Nudol is similar to an anti-ballistic missile, but it’s designed to shoot down objects in space.

    “These systems are very similar to a lot of missile defense systems, and a lot of the ballistic missile systems that Russia, China, and the United States have,” Johnson says. “You’re just orienting the targeting and making sure that it has the tracking and telemetry to be able to target a satellite instead of a point on Earth.”

    By mid-afternoon on the day of the launch, U.S. officials had confirmed that Russia had conducted a test by intentionally firing a missile at a defunct Soviet intelligence satellite called Cosmos 1408, part of the Tselina-D system. The missile obliterated the 4,850-pound satellite, producing hundreds of thousands of pieces of debris that are now in orbit.

    What Happens When an Astronaut Drops Something in Space?

    Discarded rocket parts, empty fuel tanks, broken satellites—our planet is surrounded by a floating junkyard of human-made space debris. Zipping around the Earth at more than 17,000 miles an hour, these orbital objects pose a serious threat to the future of safe space…
     

    Russia has tested the Nudol ASAT weapon before, most recently in December 2020, although never by destroying an actual object in orbit.

    “If this weapon is tested on an actual satellite or used operationally, it will cause a large debris field that could endanger commercial satellites and irrevocably pollute the space domain,” U.S. Space Command, which oversees military operations in space, warned after the December 2020 test.

    In a briefing, State Department spokesperson Ned Price called this most recent test “reckless” and “dangerous.” The U.S. Space Command called it “simply irresponsible,” with a spokesperson confirming that the satellite’s destruction was “not an accident.”

    Have other countries conducted these types of tests?

    Yes, as the Secure World Foundation details in this April 2021 report.

    Notably, in 2007 China blew up one of its own satellites, producing thousands of pieces of debris that have been a major headache ever since. The United States followed up in 2008, destroying a failing reconnaissance satellite in a very low orbit, an event that resulted in some 400 pieces of orbital junk. India did the same in March 2019, becoming the fourth country to demonstrate what’s known as counterspace weapon capabilities—but India intentionally targeted a satellite in very low Earth orbit, and most of the debris burned up in the planet’s atmosphere shortly afterward; only three trackable pieces remain circling the planet.

    Multiple anti-satellite systems either exist or are in development. Some actively destroy satellites with impactors, while others disable satellites more passively. These technologies include high-powered microwaves that can disrupt electronics, devices that jam communications systems, and ground-based laser systems. Johnson and her colleagues report that China’s ASAT systems are now so robust that the country “can threaten any U.S. satellite in LEO, and likely medium Earth orbit and GEO [geostationary orbit] as well.”

    Russia has been testing anti-satellite systems since the 1960s, starting with co-orbital anti-satellite systems that rendezvous with and destroy targets from space rather than from the ground. It has been test-firing Nudol missiles into space since 2014, just without hitting anything until now.

    How much debris did this event produce?

    The U.S. State Department announced that more than 1,500 pieces of debris are big enough to be trackable, and that hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces are also floating around.

    In total, “there are about 20,000 tracked objects currently in orbit, and probably this is going to add 10 percent to that,” McDowell says. “It’s gonna be thousands of objects, a significant addition to the number of tracked objects.”

    The U.S. government only tracks objects that are bigger than about 4 inches (10 centimeters). But LeoLabs, a startup that also tracks orbital objects, has the capability to follow bits and pieces that are as small as three-quarters of an inch wide—about half the width of a golf ball. The company’s data were among the first to suggest that Russia targeted Cosmos 1408.

    “We are counting many, many objects—we’re not even sure how many there are yet, but it’s a lot,” says Ed Lu, one of the company’s founders and a retired NASA astronaut who’s logged more than 206 days in space.

    What’s going to happen to all that space junk?

    When a satellite is blown to pieces by a missile, the debris cloud generally keeps moving along the satellite’s original orbit. Some of the pieces will be boosted into higher orbits, others will be flung to lower orbits, and some will be thrown into completely different trajectories. Over time, the cloud will expand.

    “This was a pretty energetic breakup, so that means the new objects can be on quite different orbits,” Lu says.

    Tracking those objects and nailing down their trajectories will take days, if not weeks. The largest pieces will linger in orbit for years, maybe decades. The smaller bits will reenter Earth’s atmosphere and burn up, maybe within a year or so, McDowell says.

    “For the next few years, there’s going to be an enhanced risk of collision in low-Earth orbit,” McDowell says.

    Is this debris dangerous?

    It can be, for multiple reasons. Objects in orbit are moving extremely quickly, at tens of thousands of miles an hour, which means that even colliding with a small piece of debris can produce major damage. If an object the size of a golf ball smashed into the International Space Station, it could be catastrophic, rupturing the hull and causing depressurization and death for anyone inside. But even something the size of a pea could be dangerous, depending on where it struck.

    “The number one safety risk to astronauts is already untracked debris,” Lu says. “And the number of untracked pieces big enough to come through the hull is already about a quarter-million. But space is big, and that’s what you bank on—but that isn’t really a strategy, right? It’s the same strategy the Earth relies upon to not get hit by asteroids: Space is big, most days are good.”

    What about all the other satellites up there? Are they in danger?

    In general, yes. More space debris is bad news—and if enough of it accumulates, low-Earth orbit could become unusable. Already, this region is quite crowded, and if the Federal Communications Commission approves a recent wave of applications for additional hardware, as many as 94,000 new satellites could be headed to orbit in the coming years.

    As congestion increases, operating satellites becomes trickier, and the dangers posed to crewed missions also increase. In April astronauts on NASA’s Crew-2 mission had to unexpectedly take shelter when an unknown piece of debris came too close to their spacecraft as they flew to the ISS.

    “Making unnecessary debris in LEO is bad. Making unnecessary debris in LEO when we’re vastly increasing the number of active LEO satellites is super-bad,” McDowell says.

    Cosmos-1408 was orbiting 300 miles up, which is just below the planned 340-mile altitude for SpaceX’s megaconstellation of internet-providing Starlink satellites. Some of the debris blasted into higher orbits could collide with any of the thousands of Starlink satellites that are already aloft, possibly incapacitating them.

    “You’ve got thousands of targets in the form of the Starlink satellites, and if you manage to hit a few, now you’ve got dead Starlink satellites passing through this crowded region,” McDowell says. And then, he says, you could face the beginning of a disastrous snowball scenario known as Kessler syndrome.

    What is Kessler syndrome—and are we hurtling toward it?

    Proposed by NASA’s Donald Kessler in 1978, this eponymous scenario describes a catastrophic chain reaction of colliding satellites that eventually destroys our ability to operate in low-Earth orbit. As objects in orbit collide and disintegrate, the ever-growing cloud of space debris accumulates, fuels further collisions, and ignites a cascade of destruction that only fizzles out when there’s nothing left to pulverize.

    This scenario has been portrayed in fiction, perhaps most fittingly in the 2013 film Gravity. In the movie, Russia shoots down a satellite, producing a chain of collisions that kills some astronauts and forces others to make an emergency return to Earth.

    “We are already at risk for Kessler, and it’s just a question of how long it takes,” McDowell says. “It’s one of these typical environmental problems: It’s not that you wake up one day and the temperature has increased 50 degrees or the oceans have become poisonous, it’s that every week things are slightly suckier. You drown in your own filth without even noticing it.”

    If space debris is so dangerous, why did Russia conduct this test? 

    While it’s difficult to know Moscow’s specific reasons for conducting the ASAT weapon test, it is clear that Russia—along with the United States and China—view space as a potential warfighting domain. “Russian military doctrine indicates they view space as critical to modern warfare and consider the use of counterspace capabilities as both a means of reducing U.S. military effectiveness and for winning future wars,” says a spokesperson for U.S. Space Command.

    Even so, the nature of the test has left many scratching their heads.

    “I’m frankly quite surprised that Russia chose to do this, and that they chose to do it in low-Earth orbit,” Johnson says. “They were very vocal and very aware of the space debris issue.”

    Over the last day, some people have speculated that these types of technologies could be used to intentionally destroy humanity’s ability to fly in space. But such an act would have extraordinary consequences.

    “Russia is almost just as reliant on space for their modern military as we are, and for their way of life,” Johnson says. “It would cause some really serious damage to the world, and to Russia as well.”

  • Empty benches at PMQs amid fury at Johnson’s inability to do one job

    Empty benches at PMQs amid fury at Johnson’s inability to do one job

    Tories’ belief in PM as a winner hard to maintain after multiple beatings suffered on Wednesday

    The Gardian, published 17th November 2021 by John Crace

    (see YouTube video of PMQs)

    It was yet again the gaps on the Tory benches that most caught the eye. During the good times it’s standing room only for prime minister’s questions, but these days the three rows behind the government frontbench are barely half full. And it’s almost certainly not because dozens of Tory MPs are preoccupied with their second jobs: it’s because they are profoundly pissed off with the way Boris Johnson is doing his first one.

    Mind you, the ones who did show up as a token gesture of support to their hapless leader may well have made a mental note to give PMQs a swerve in future weeks. For what we got was Boris at his absolute worst. Not the “everything’s great, Bertie Booster” Boris. Not even the nauseating, ersatz absent-minded joker Boris. But the raw, childlike, unchannelled, psychotic Boris. Angry, out of control and out of his depth. Lashing out randomly while blaming others for his own shortcomings. The shallowness of his empty narcissism ruthlessly exposed. Not a pretty sight and one normally only seen by women and friends he has betrayed.

    To no one’s surprise, Keir Starmer focused on matters of trust. Never Johnson’s strongest suit even on a good day. And especially not now. Could the prime minister guarantee not to go back on his promise to build both a new railway line between Manchester and Leeds and the eastern leg of HS2? “Pifflepafflewifflewaffle,” said Boris. We can almost certainly take that as a no then.

    The Labour leader then moved on to sleaze and Tory corruption. Other people had apologised. Would he? Again Johnson made no pretence to answer while Jacob Rees-Mogg, the homunculus in an oversized suit who is the unthinking person’s idea of a thinking person, shook his head furiously. He definitely hadn’t apologised. Oh, no. He had only expressed the mildest regret. Saying sorry was for the little people. It wasn’t a great look.

    “But what about the money you took from Mishcon de Reya?” Boris asked. “The leader of the opposition is guilty of Mish-Conduct”. He was so pleased with that schoolboy gag that he repeated it three times. For some reason the Tories have got it into their heads that Starmer had been taking money to help Gina Miller stop Brexit. They don’t appear to have noticed that the payment was received in 2016, well before Miller got involved in her legal fight. Details, details …

    But Johnson went on and on, eventually getting called out by the Speaker for being generally unpleasant and obstructive. Keir normally plays it safe and passionless, but this time he went for the jugular. Johnson was a coward, not a leader. Someone who had been investigated by every organisation to which he had been elected. And most places that he’s worked, for that matter. He can’t say sorry – he believes the rules don’t apply to him and he rows back on every promise. “The joke isn’t funny any more”. It hasn’t been for a while.

    Things didn’t get any better for Boris when he appeared before the liaison committee, the supergroup of select committee chairs, later in the afternoon. Even the mild mannered William Wragg, who is one of the more docile Tories, inadvertently managed to get the better of him by asking Boris a simple question about the ministerial code. Something in which Boris doesn’t believe, having forced one independent adviser to resign by refusing to accept his findings on Priti Patel, and replacing him with Lord Geidt – the Geidtadoodle – who could be relied on not to find anything compromising about Johnson’s own financial arrangements.

    Johnson smirked nervously, but somewhere in his subconscious was a growing realisation that the comedy was turning to a personal tragedy. He was the chancer who had been found out by his peers. Even his own backbenchers had turned on him. Sick of U-turn after U-turn and U-turns on U-turns. Taken for mugs and made not just to look stupid, but corrupt with it.

    Labour’s Chris Bryant quietly and methodically took advantage of the prime minister’s discomfort to expose what everyone had long suspected. That Boris hadn’t bothered to read the Owen Paterson report before whipping his MPs to ignore it. Just too much hassle. Too much work. Policy had been constructed on the hoof, reacting to whatever shitshow had been going on at the time. But he couldn’t remember telling John Whittingdale that there was definitely cross-party consensus for his sham committee. Even if Whittingdale could.

    It soon got worse. Yvette Cooper was having none of Johnson’s usual prevarications. Did he think Paterson had broken the rules or not? Just saying he had fallen foul of the rules wasn’t good enough. Boris looked horrified at being asked to tell the truth. But he ran out of road and had no option.

    Cooper pressed on. People expected even higher standards of the prime minister – news to Johnson – so why hadn’t he worn a mask at Hexham hospital. “There was barely 30 seconds when I wasn’t wearing a mask?” he whined. So that’s all right then. It was just bad luck that was the 30 seconds in which he was photographed. Perhaps there was a sign in that corridor saying “please don’t wear a mask here”.

    If Boris thought his troubles were over once the questions moved away from sleaze, he was badly mistaken. Everyone went for him. Particularly his own MPs. Mel Stride, Philip Dunne, Julian Knight, Tobias Ellwood and Jeremy Hunt all took chunks out of an under-prepared and badly briefed Johnson. The prime minister’s life was also falling apart in the Commons where an embarrassed Gillian Keegan was forced to explain how the government had managed to lose – presumably in the incinerator – the records of the phone calls between Paterson, Randox – who paid him more than £100,000 a year – and former health minister Lord Bethell.

    It felt like a moment of no return. The government was in meltdown. Rules on second jobs were going to be kicked into the long grass. A minister had just guessed three separate figures of 10, 15 and 20 hours that MPs could freelance each week. Chaos. Johnson had never given much of a shit about his own MPs. But they had cared about him. Especially, the “red wall” MPs elected in 2019. They had believed he was a winner. Now though, the last of his stardust had been brushed away. And all that was left was an emperor in all his pallid nakedness. From now on, it was every man and woman for themselves.

  • Anti-satellite test – BBC

    Anti-satellite test – BBC

    The US has condemned Russia for conducting a « dangerous and irresponsible » missile test that it says endangered the crew aboard the International Space Station (ISS).
    The test blew up one of Russia’s own satellites, creating debris that forced the ISS crew to shelter in capsules.The station currently has seven crew members on board – four Americans, a German and two Russians. The space station orbits at an altitude of about 420km (260 miles).

    « Earlier today, the Russian Federation recklessly conducted a destructive satellite test of a direct ascent anti-satellite missile against one of its own satellites, » US state department spokesman Ned Price said at a briefing.
    « The test has so far generated over 1,500 pieces of trackable orbital debris and hundreds of thousands of pieces of smaller orbital debris that now threaten the interests of all nations. »
    Russian space agency Roscosmos downplayed the incident.
    « The orbit of the object, which forced the crew today to move into spacecraft according to standard procedures, has moved away from the ISS orbit. The station is in the green zone, » the agency tweeted.
    The wayward material passed by without incident, but its origin is now under the spotlight.
    It appears to have come from a broken-up Russian satellite, Kosmos-1408. A spy satellite launched in 1982, it weighed over a tonne and had ceased working many years ago.
    LeoLabs, a space debris-tracking company, said its radar facility in New Zealand had picked up multiple objects where the long-defunct spacecraft should have been.
    But Mr Price said the danger was far from over.
    « This test will significantly increase the risk to astronauts and cosmonauts on the International Space Station, as well as to other human spaceflight activities, » he said.
    « Russia’s dangerous and irresponsible behaviour jeopardises the long-term sustainability of outer space and clearly demonstrate that Russia’s claims of opposing weaponisation of space are disingenuous and hypocritical.
    « The US will work with our partners and allies to respond to their irresponsible act. »
    It’s difficult not to view anti-satellite missile tests as a form of madness.
    It’s impossible to control the debris field that results from a high-velocity impact. Thousands of fragments are produced. Some will be propelled downwards towards Earth and out of harm’s way, but many will also head to higher altitudes where they will harass operational missions for years into the future – including those of the nation state that carried out the test.
    What must the Russian cosmonauts on the space station have been thinking when they took shelter in their Soyuz capsule early on Monday because of the risk debris from this test might intersect with their orbital home?
    Space junk is a rapidly worsening situation. Sixty-four years of activity above our heads means there are now roughly a million objects running around up there uncontrolled in the size range of 1cm (0.4in) to 10cm.
    An impact from any one of these could be mission-ending for a vital weather or telecommunications satellite. Nations need to be clearing up the space environment, not polluting it still further.
    A number of countries have the ability to take out satellites from the ground, including the US, Russia, China and India.
    Testing of such missiles is rare, but always draws widespread condemnation whenever it occurs, because it pollutes the space environment for everyone.
    When China destroyed one of its retired weather satellites in 2007, it created more than 2,000 pieces of trackable debris. This material posed an ongoing hazard to operational space missions, not least those of China itself.
    Brian Weeden, an expert in space situational awareness, earlier said that if it was confirmed Russia had conducted a test that endangered the ISS, the conduct would have been « beyond irresponsible ».
    The space station occupies an orbital shell that other operators try to keep clear of hardware, either working or retired.
    However, the astronauts are increasingly having to take precautionary measures when fragments from old satellites and rockets come uncomfortably close.
    The velocities at which this material moves means it could easily puncture the walls of the station’s modules.
    Precautionary measures usually involve closing hatches between the modules, and, as happened on Monday, climbing into the capsules that took the astronauts up to the station. These vehicles stay attached to the ISS throughout the crews’ tours of duty in case there is a need for a rapid « lifeboat » escape.

    US anger at Russian anti-satellite missile test debris https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59299101


  • Russian anti-satellite launch debris

    Russian anti-satellite launch debris

    Original article in the Houston Chronicle on 15/11/2021

    Astronauts and cosmonauts onboard the International Space Station were told to take shelter from debris.

    The cause of that debris has not yet been officially identified, but the U.S. Space Command confirmed Monday that it is new debris.

    « U.S. Space Command is aware of a debris-generating event in outer space,” the Space Command said in a statement. “We are actively working to characterize the debris field and will continue to ensure all space-faring nations have the information necessary to maneuver satellites if impacted. We are also in the process of working with the interagency, including the State Department and NASA, concerning these reports and will provide an update in the near future. »

    According to NASA, there are roughly 23,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball orbiting the Earth. There are half a million pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger, and about 100 million pieces of debris about .04 inches and larger. There is even more smaller micrometer-sized (0.000039 of an inch in diameter) debris.

    There are many ways that debris can be created in space. Two satellites — or a satellite and piece of space junk — could collide while orbiting the Earth. Countries could launch anti-satellite missiles from the ground to destroy objects in orbit. There could also be a catastrophic anomaly, such as a satellite’s fuel tank exploding or its battery overheating and then exploding, said Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Harrison said it’s too soon to know what caused this new debris.

    Brian Weeden, director of program planning for the Secure World Foundation that promotes the sustainable and peaceful use of space, said 18 or so pieces of orbital debris had been identified as of Monday morning. He believes a ground-launched missile or a collision between two large satellites would have created more debris.

    “That low amount of debris is more in line with an internal explosion or a collision with a very small piece of debris,” Weeden said in an email. “However, it is early and there may be more pieces of debris that have not yet been reported.”

    Russian space agency Roscosmos confirmed on Twitter that astronauts and cosmonauts took shelter from debris in the Soyuz and Crew Dragon spacecraft. The space station was no longer threatened by debris at the time of the Tweet.

    “The orbit of the object, which forced the crew today to move into spacecraft according to standard procedures, has moved away from the ISS orbit,” Roscosmos said on Twitter.

    The U.S. Space Force tracks items in Earth’s orbit. The U.S. Space Command — which is different from the Space Force, a military service responsible for training people and providing equipment — directs military forces as they move beyond the purview of gravity: operating and protecting satellites and working to deter conflict in space.

    Private companies also track debris. And LeoLabs, which provides services to help avoid collisions, might have identified the satellite that caused this new debris (again, it’s not yet known how the debris was created but the satellite could have collided with something in space, exploded on its own or been shot down by a missile). LeoLabs said on Twitter that multiple objects have been detected near the expected location of Cosmos 1408, a satellite launched by the Soviet Union in 1982.

  • Newscasters – The Guardian

    Newscasters – The Guardian

    Why the golden age of TV news presenters has had its day

    Clockwise from top: Trevor McDonald, Anna Ford, Angela Rippon, Anushka Asthana, Adam Boulton, Sue Lawley, Jon Snow, Huw Edwards and Richard Baker.
    Adam Boulton – leaving Sky News is ‘a wrench’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer

    Published by the Guardian on Sat 13 Nov 2021

    News broadcasting on television once meant a desk and an obligatory suit and tie. And even when female news anchors became as commonplace a sight on Britain’s prime-time bulletins as the sombre, clean-shaven men, the way to imply authority and impartiality was always to adopt a calm, formal tone of voice.

    But with the departure this month of two of the great silverbacks of the news jungle, Channel 4’s Jon Snow and Sky News’s Adam Boulton, the future of the unflappable “voice of news”, coming out from above a sheaf of shuffled papers, is in doubt.

    A former generation of male titans, ranging from Richard Baker, Alastair Burnet and Reginald Bosanquet, to more recent stars such as Trevor McDonald and Jeremy Paxman, are no longer handling our headlines. And recently Huw Edwards-watchers have suggested the Welsh journalist may also be preparing to leave his prominent role at BBC News.

    Hourly bulletins from the network broadcasters have long lost their “appointment to view” status and have joined the general hubbub of satellite-channel and social-media updates.

    This means the commercial identity provided by a consistent newscaster now has arguably much less value. In a news market led by instant reactions transmitted via viral gifs and memes, the heavyweight anchor suddenly stands accused of holding news back.

    Adam Boulton

    Adam Boulton – leaving Sky News is ‘a wrench’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer

    Among those assessing the value of the traditional format this weekend is Boulton himself: “Truth be told the news anchor has never really been a British concept,” he told the Observer. “We have news readers or presenters. And they have never really had the authority, or the public adulation of such as Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw.”

    Boulton, 62, who leaves Sky News with a “wrench” after 33 years, first serving as political editor and then from 2014 as editor-at-large, is stepping away from his chair in the studio in favour of longer form journalism. And, tellingly, all the great American anchors he cites are from the fading past.

    Snow, 74, who will present his last C4 News later this month, is, for many viewers an emblem of fair-minded, liberal journalism. He, like Boulton, is a hardened hand who has tackled last-minute autocue changes, glib politicians and technical glitches live on air for decades.

    Yet for one anonymous former television news editor, the change is long overdue. “These people, Boulton, Snow, or over on the radio John Humphrys and Jenni Murray, became national treasures. But this also made them unsackable, big beasts.” It is a problem, he argues, because some of those anchors who remain on screen are beginning to drag the news down.

    Anna Ford

    Pioneer new presenter Anna Ford. Photograph: Evening Standard/Getty Images

    Behind the scenes, the head of Sky News John Ryley is thought to be steering coverage towards a more agile, reporter-led delivery style. In fact, the prospects for the whole of Sky News are uncertain, with its loss-making future under its new owners, Comcast, only secured for another seven years. Times Radio’s new model is now thought to be influencing the agenda, with opinionated reporting and analysis becoming the relevant currency.

    But then, Boulton argues, the job of being a straight news anchor was always a slightly uneasy one in Britain. “For a start the budget was usually more limited here. I remember being delayed at some German airport while Dan Rather’s private plane took off after some Nato summit or other and thinking it would be rather nice to be an American-style anchor – only to be brought back to earth by the refusal of BBC expenses to compensate John Cole for an ink-spattered shirt.”

    Boulton suspects British news editors and producers were often resistant to the power of a presenter who had developed a public profile and a strong relationship with viewers.

    “It is hard to escape the view that British television managers, those behind the screen, have always resented the talent in public view and used their power to curb it,” he said.

    “The BBC was set up that way as a producer’s medium. In my experience independent television has always devolved more power to those in front of the cameras, but not too much. Reggie Bosanquet and Alastair Burnet were national figures but were also widely mocked for their alcoholic intake. Over on the BBC, Richard Baker, Robert Dougall and Kenneth Kendall were just as well-known, but not for their opinions. They were mellow voices reading scripts.”

    When female anchors, such as Anna Ford, Angela Ripon and Sue Lawley arrived, Boulton also notes, they were largely appraised for “their gender attributes not their undoubted intelligence”.

    Writing about the decline of the old-school anchor this summer, Ryley recalled Burnet’s farewell broadcast in 1991 and argued that the 1960s model he personified was “actually a triumph of form over substance”, with little depth of coverage. “It was akin to a daily act of worship, with Burnet performing the role of the nation’s vicar.”

    ADAM BOULTON : « I remember being delayed at a German airport while Dan Rather’s private plane took off after some Nato summit »

    Before he pronounced that “the age of the all-powerful anchor is gone”, Ryley also pointed out that if millions do tune in now, it is to watch the prime minister instruct us to “stay at home”, or to see the Queen reassure us “we will meet again”. It looks as if the key organs of state have learned to go directly to their citizens and subjects.

    When the 24-hour news services arrived and needed to create a bit of audience recognition, it was as likely to come from a familiar reporter as from the face in the studio, said Boulton. In America, richly paid screen stars were rewarded for their biased slant on the current affairs, with Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, of the right-leaning Fox News, or Rachel Maddow, of the liberally inclined MSNBC, becoming national figures.

    “In the US, polarisation and prejudiced opinion works – a far cry from Walter Cronkite’s vision of himself as the conscience of the nation, on a par with a big city fire chief,” Boulton complains, also expressing relief that the trend has not yet entirely taken off in Britain.

    At stake is, well, what exactly? While some argue we are about to throw away concern for the serious tone of news, others warn of the greater danger of losing all contact with younger viewers. News habits will not form unless the hi-tech, staccato communications methods employed by the BBC’s Ros Atkins or by Anushka Asthana, standing at her data screen on ITN’s Peston, swiftly replace the static anchors.

    For one leading television news executive there is no point clinging to the old ways. “Anchors do not work in the digital news world. And the really big interviews, like Emily Maitlis meeting Prince Andrew, don’t come along very often.”

    The problem facing television is that while an avowed great like Boulton once ably held lengthy studio broadcasts together, “no one has that level of experience now”.

    For Asthana, watching Boulton work during her time at Sky News was a lesson in craft. “He is one of the most impressive broadcasters I’ve ever worked with,” she said. “I don’t think people realise how hard it is to do 10 hours of coverage of a live story and be over every twist and turn. Adam is a towering figure. And his transformation from political editor to presenter was seamless.”

    And Boulton? He is unable to stop himself mourning the death of the idea that the contract between a regular news anchor and a viewer is more than just commercial branding: “The relationship of an individual with the audience matters. Those who survive manage to establish an inadvertent rapport of trust with the audience over decades on screen.

    “These relationships have value for both the audience and the broadcasters.”

  • Every move you make

    Every move you make

    Hatching of six bluetits. Video from Facebook « Nestbox » page.

  • BBC Sarah Rainsford’s expulsion

    BBC Sarah Rainsford’s expulsion

    Sarah Rainsford: My last despatch before Russian expulsion

    By Sarah Rainsford
    BBC News, Moscow

    Published
     
     
    Sarah Rainsford reporting in Moscow
    Image caption,
    Sarah Rainsford has reported for the BBC from Moscow for many years, first travelling there as a teenager

    I’m writing this in the middle of the night at my kitchen table in Moscow, looking over towards the dim red stars and golden domes of the Kremlin. But by the time you read it I’ll be on my way back to England, expelled from Russia as a national security threat.

    After more than 20 years reporting from Moscow, I still can’t believe it.

    I suspected I was being singled out around a year ago when the Russian foreign ministry started issuing me short-term visas. Even those would be approved at the last minute.

    At one point I was told I’d been given my last-ever visa, before the official claimed she’d been mistaken.

    But on 10 August I was taken aside at passport control at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport and told I’d been barred from Russia by the FSB security service.

    The officer reading out the order had all the words, but no explanation.

    « Sarah Elizabeth, » – he kept using my middle name – « You are being refused entry to the Russian Federation – indefinitely. This is for the protection of the security of Russia, » he clarified and then said I was being deported.

    I told him I was a journalist: « Do I look like a threat? »

    « We’re just the implementers, » the border guard repeated multiple times. « Ask the FSB. »

    Short presentational grey line

    I’d flown into Moscow that morning from Belarus where I’d been reporting on the suppression of mass protests against Alexander Lukashenko.

    Vladimir Putin’s close ally was hosting his annual giant « conversation » with the press and I’d used the chance to question how he could possibly stay on as president after the torture and imprisonment of peaceful protesters.

    First, he slammed me as a Western propagandist, then his loyal supporters rounded on me, live on Belarusian television.

    That night, as we edited the exchange into our report, the foreign ministry back in Russia announced new sanctions against the UK: a group of unnamed British citizens were accused of engaging in « anti-Russian activity ».

    It was Moscow’s delayed response to UK sanctions over human rights abuses in Chechnya and high-level corruption. With the latest visa in my passport close to expiring, I felt nervous.

    A few hours later, my colleagues cleared the border in Moscow as usual but I was stopped.

    I was eventually left to wander freely in the departures hall, though without my passport, as others negotiated frantically to halt my deportation.

    I was sure they’d fail: the order against me came from the powerful FSB.

    That’s why I’d signed the form that said I understood I’d be breaking the law if I entered Russia ever again. I’d protested, but I had no choice.

     

    At one point, I sat on a broken airport bench and recorded my feelings, crying into the camera.

    Then suddenly, 12 hours after landing, I got a call telling me I could cross the border – just once, to pack up my life in Moscow.

    Short presentational grey line

    My expulsion means cutting years of ties here.

    Russia has been a major part of my life ever since I travelled to Moscow at 18 as the USSR fell apart.

    I witnessed the chaos first hand: the endless queues and shortages, even the wars. In the mid-1990s, as a student, I lived through the gangster days in St Petersburg when the bar I worked in had men check in their guns at the door.

    They were tough years for many Russians but it was a time of new and exhilarating freedoms, too.

    Then came Vladimir Putin.

    Ever since his election 20 years ago, I’ve been reporting from Moscow – charting the slow erosion of those freedoms, the increasing suppression of dissent as Mr Putin manoeuvres to keep power.

    Sarah Rainsford reporting in Moscow
    Image caption,
    Sarah Rainsford has charted the years of Vladimir Putin’s rule since he first came to power

    The pressure on activists, critics and now journalists has intensified in the past year, since opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned. In the run-up to next month’s elections to parliament, it’s increased further still.

    Nervous after last year’s giant protests in Belarus over a rigged vote, the Kremlin seems set on stamping out critical voices here; all hint of real competition. Silencing the free press is central to that.

    The week I found out I was being forced to leave Russia, the country’s biggest independent channel was labelled a « foreign agent ».

    Dozhd TV joined a growing blacklist of media who have to declare their « hostile » status each time they publish any news, or else face crippling fines and prosecution.

    « This status of foreign agent means we are enemies of the state, » Tikhon Dzyadko told me on the news set. Subscriptions went up, not down, after the designation and the editor-in-chief told me some of his team were proud of the designation as a mark of quality.

    But Mr Dzyadko says the latest turn against the press is worrying.

    Tikhon Dzyadko

    BBC
    I think there’s an understanding in the Kremlin that the pretence of being a democracy is over.
    Tikhon Dzyadko
    Editor-in-chief, Dozhd TV

    « It’s like [they say] we don’t need these human rights activists or independent media here any more.

    « It is very bad and it could become much worse – at any time. »

    Short presentational grey line

    When I was called in to the foreign ministry in Moscow, they insisted my expulsion was nothing personal. Officially, they call it retaliation for a Tass news agency reporter denied leave to remain in the UK.

    But that was two years ago and there was no fuss at all at the time.

    Senior officials claim no knowledge of my status as a « threat » – even when I know they’ve seen the form I signed. They so far refuse to confirm one source who says I’ve also been included on the sanctions list.

    Sarah Rainsford reporting in Moscow

    Many people I’ve interviewed in the past have now left Russia for safety. Others admit they have an escape plan, somewhere to run to.

    I never thought for a moment that I’d be joining them on the outside.

    And I’m going with the labels « anti-Russian » and « security threat » ringing in my ears.

    But I’m trying to drown that noise out.

    Ever since my expulsion became public, near-strangers have been stopping to apologise to me over what’s happened. Some even say they’re ashamed of their government.

    It’s those Russians’ kindness and warmth that I’m thinking of, as the rain falls and it’s almost time to go. Maybe for good. But I hope not.

  • John Major on Boris

    John Major on Boris

    Boris is trashing Parliament – John Major

    Boris_Johnson_–_Recherche Google
    Former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major has criticised the government’s handling of Owen Paterson’s case as shameful and wrong.
     
    In a BBC interview, he said the actions of Boris Johnson’s government had trashed Parliament’s reputation at home and abroad, and were « un-Conservative ». This week, the government tried to block the suspension of Mr Paterson, who had broken lobbying rules – but then reversed its decision. The government has apologised.

    On Wednesday, Tory MPs blocked the Commons Standards Committee’s recommendation that Mr Paterson should be suspended for 30 days by calling for an overhaul of the MPs’ standards watchdog instead. They initially had the backing of No 10, but Downing Street reversed its decision after a furious backlash by opposition MPs and some Conservatives. Mr Paterson then resigned as MP for North Shropshire, saying he wanted a life « outside the cruel world of politics ».

    Sir John suggested the Johnson administration was « politically corrupt » over its treatment of the House of Commons and said its attempt to overhaul the standards system was « rather a bad mistake » but « isn’t a mistake on its own ». « There’s a general whiff of ‘we are the masters now’ about their behaviour, » he said. « It has to stop, it has to stop soon. »
     
    Sir John told BBC’s Radio 4’s Today programme: « I have been a Conservative all my life. And if I am concerned at how the government is behaving, I suspect lots of other people are as well. « It seems to me, as a lifelong Conservative, that much of what they are doing is un-Conservative in its behaviour. » « This government has done a number of things that have concerned me deeply: they have broken the law, the prorogation of Parliament. They have broken treaties, I have in mind the Northern Ireland Protocol. They have broken their word on many occasions. »
     
    Analysis by Chris Mason:
    Let’s be clear: Sir John Major has been a critic of Boris Johnson for some time. During the EU referendum he reckoned the NHS would be as safe under Mr Johnson and Michael Gove as a pet hamster would be with a « hungry python ». And he voted for Jeremy Hunt, not Boris Johnson, to be Conservative leader, because, as he said at the time: « I cannot vote for someone who was part of the Brexit campaign that misled the country. » So we shouldn’t be surprised that he is a critic. But nonetheless it is still quite something when a former Conservative prime minister delivers such a detailed, lengthy and withering critique as Sir John just has of the current Tory prime minister.
     
    He went on to describe the government as « perhaps politically corrupt » in its briefing of parts of the press well in advance of any public announcement or statement to Parliament. Asked about reports Owen Paterson could receive a peerage, Sir John said he thought it « would be rather extraordinary if that happens » – adding that he was unsure it would be approved.
     
    Sir John’s own Conservative government in the 1990s was brought down in part due to allegations of sleaze and the cash-for-questions scandal where MPs were offered money in exchange for asking parliamentary questions. This was « immensely damaging, it was embarrassing, it hurt Parliament », Sir John said. « When that happened I set up the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life to stop it, which has been a huge success.
     
    « The striking difference is this: in the 1990s I set up a committee to tackle this sort of behaviour. « Over the last few days we have seen today’s government trying to defend this sort of behaviour. »
     
    The BBC has asked the government to respond to Sir John’s remarks.
     
    Meanwhile, opposition parties have discussed backing an independent anti-sleaze candidate in the North Shropshire by-election, which will be held now Owen Paterson is standing down from Parliament. The parties have been looking at the 1997 election in Tatton, Cheshire, when journalist Martin Bell stood as an anti-sleaze candidate and defeated the sitting Conservative Neil Hamilton, who had been embroiled in the « cash for questions » affair. Labour has ruled out standing aside in the forthcoming by-election, but Mr Bell said it might be something they come to regret. He told BBC’s Breakfast sleaze was an issue that « really cuts through to people in a way that others don’t ». He added that he doubted any party would be able to overturn Mr Paterson’s majority.

    BBC News article, 5th November 2021

  • Colours of the Moon

    Colours of the Moon

     

    Description by Marcella Guilia Pace, Italian astrophotographer. First posted by her on 20 November 2020.

    « What color is the Moon?

    I have collected all my Full Moon shots that I have taken over the past 10 years. Of these shots I have selected all the shades of color that the Moon has taken in front of my lens and my eyes.
    Our atmosphere gives different colors to our satellite (skattering) based on the height with respect to the horizon, based on the presence of veils or suspended dust. The appearance of the Moon also changes: low on the horizon the refraction compresses the lunar disk at the poles which appears as an ellipse.
    I have chosen to present my full moons through a spiral arrangement that ends with a lunar eclipse. »

  • Holding on -Oprah Winfrey

    Holding on -Oprah Winfrey

    How Oprah Learned to Stop Holding Grudges and Let Go..

    By Oprah Winfrey

    I’ve mastered the art of letting go so well, I forget to be angry. Ask anyone who really knows me, and they will confirm: I don’t hold grudges very long.

    I learn the lesson, yes (this person cannot be trusted—or is toxic, dangerous, rude, whatever), but the grinding replay of what was done or said, looping over and over in my head, I let go.

    For me, it comes from years of practice. And from listening, over the decades, to thousands of stories from people who couldn’t release the past and got stuck in it. For sure, that’s one of the great tragedies of human behavior I’ve witnessed: seeing grown men and women who can’t stop playing the mind tape from an event that happened days, weeks, sometimes years ago.

    What a loss of precious time and energy, being a prisoner by your own hand, laden with the burdens of the past.

    Eckhart Tolle speaks beautifully of this in his book A New Earth, when he shares the story of two Zen monks:

    Tanzan and Ekido…were walking along a country road that had become extremely muddy after heavy rains. Near a village, they came upon a young woman who was trying to cross the road, but the mud was so deep, it would have ruined the silk kimono she was wearing. Tanzan at once picked her up and carried her to the other side.

    The monks walked on in silence.

    Five hours later, as they were approaching the lodging temple, Ekido couldn’t restrain himself any longer. « Why did you carry that girl across the road? » he asked. « We monks are not supposed to do things like that. »

    « I put the girl down hours ago, » said Tanzan. « Are you still carrying her? »

    That’s reality for so many people. Maybe you’re one of them, holding on to what happened or what you think should have happened.

    But I ask you: For what purpose? To feel right? Righteous? Justified? Validated?

    Proving I was right used to be a major character flaw. I had to do some conscious work to change it.

    A single question got me started: Do you want to be right, or do you want peace? Those 11 words released me years ago and put me on the path to freedom.

    Whatever your reason for holding on to resentments, I know this for sure: There is none worth the price you pay in lost time. Time you could have given yourself to love and live more fully. Time you can never make up.

    The time is now. Let go!