mission

It’s about whether a company can change its mission

by

Elon Musk and Sam Altman They have stood before a court in Oakland to settle the future of OpenAIwith a lawsuit claiming more than $130 billion and calling for the removal of Sam Altman as CEO. The hearing started this Tuesday with opening statements that have revealed the real dimension of the case: it is not just a fight between two billionaires, but a very basic question that still does not have a clear answer. Why is it important. The underlying question is not whether Musk, as it is colloquially said, ‘was messed up’. It is whether an organization founded as an NGO can pivot towards profit after having attracted donations, talent and credibility under another model. If the answer is ‘no’ (or if it can at least be judicially challenged), there are a few technology companies in a similar situation: Mozilla, Anthropic or Wikipedia / Wikimedia Foundation live in similar realities. The precedent that this trial sets may be a blow to other groups. The context: OpenAI was born in 2015 with a mission: to develop AI for the benefit of humanity, as a wise man said“non-profit”. Musk contributed about $38 million in his first years. In 2019, the company launched a for-profit subsidiary to raise capital at scale. In 2023, it signed a 10 billion agreement with Microsoft that, according to the accusation, was the point of no return: from then on, OpenAI no longer operated for humanity but for its shareholders. Today, the lucrative subsidiary is valued at $852 billion and could go public before the end of 2026, although There are some cracks in that plan.. Between the lines. Musk’s legal thesis depends on proving that there was fraud at the time of the donation, not simply that he doesn’t like where the company has gone. According to Sam Brunson, professor of nonprofit law at Loyola University in Chicago, cited by Fortunethe general principle of law is that whoever donates to an organization has given that money and has no recourse if they later do not like its decisions. The only way out is to prove that there was fraud, that they lied to you at the time of donating. And that proof is very difficult to obtain. What comes closest to that proof are the private notes of Greg Brockman, co-founder of OpenAI. In September 2017, Brockman wrote that this was “the only opportunity to get out from under Elon” and that accepting his conditions would destroy his decision-making capacity and his economic side. After a meeting in November of that year in which Musk was assured that OpenAI would remain an NGO, Brockman noted that if they converted the company to a for-profit entity three months later, “it would have been a lie.” The judge who sent the case to trial cited these notes directly in his January ruling. Yes, but. The fact that there are compromising notes does not mean that Musk’s legal theory is solid. The original NGO still exists. Its technology was licensed to the for-profit subsidiary, but the nonprofit foundation maintains nominal control of the company and retains the economic appreciation of that subsidiary. NGOs can generate profits, they simply cannot distribute them among shareholders. If OpenAI did not make an explicit and documented promise to never create a for-profit subsidiary, the fraud argument has very little meaning. Most of the experts consulted by the Anglo-Saxon press these days believe that Musk has little chance of winning in the responsibility phase. Marking agenda. On Sunday, less than 48 hours before the trial began, OpenAI published its new framework of five principles for AGI: democratization, empowerment, universal prosperity, resilience and adaptability. The 2018 document mentioned AGI twelve times. The new one, only two. He timing It is no coincidence: Altman publishes a manifesto that portrays him as the guardian responsible for the development of AI just when a court is going to judge whether he betrayed the company’s original mission or not. The big question. The trial will last, in principle, about three weeks. But the question it raises goes beyond the verdict: can a company that started as a non-profit organization (attracting donations, talent and legitimacy under that banner) freely pivot towards profit without anyone having the right to complain? If the answer ends up being ‘yes’, without much nuance, there will be something wrong. Not because Musk is right about everything, but because the underlying argument makes sense: if you benefit from tax favors and an altruistic reputation to boot, then you can’t pivot just like that without distorting competition. The question does not have an easy answer. That a jury in Oakland is answering it says a lot about how much the law lacks to keep up with the speed with which the technology industry moves. In Xataka | OpenAI is already worth $852 billion: never has a company been so valuable while burning so much money Featured image | Xataka

Blue Origin equals SpaceX in rocket reuse but fails in the mission

by

Blue Origin has reused the propellant of its New Glenn rocket for the first time, reaching a milestone that until now had only been achieved by SpaceX. With this achievement, it is one step closer to its main competitor, which is also beginning to hinder its path to the Moon. However, this launch has been accompanied by some errors that still allow Elon Musk’s company to breathe easy. The good and the bad. Last November, Blue Origin managed to recover the propellant for the first time with which he had launched a New Glenn rocket into space. Their goal was to reuse it, exactly as SpaceX already does routinely. That second achievement has been a long time coming, but it finally took place this Sunday, April 19. The launch was carried out successfully, but there was a problem: The satellite it was carrying as a payload was placed in the wrong orbit. Therefore, although this is a giant step for Jeff Bezos’ space company, there are still details to be refined. Background. Blue Origin had already managed to reuse the propellant of a rocket, but it was not a New Glenn rocket, but a New Shepard. This one is smaller, so it was less of a challenge. To match SpaceX, it needed to do the same with a larger rocket. For this reason, the company’s goal has long been set on reusing the first phase of a New Glenn. This one measures 98 meters high. The New Shepard only 18 meters. A failed attempt in January 2025. To reuse a propellant, it must first be recovered. This occurs after the rocket launches. The two phases separate and, while the second continues the journey to leave its payload in place, the first returns to Earth. Ideally, a vertical landing or splashdown should occur, so that the propellant can be recovered intact. Blue Origin already tried this with a New Glenn rocket in January 2025, but a failure to fire the engines during descent prevented it from being done correctly. In November, however, complete recovery was achieved. That has been the propellant that has now been reused. SpaceX has reused its Falcon 9 hundreds of times Other companys. In reality, the only space companies that have achieved reuse of this type have been Blue Origin and SpaceX, although there is another that has done something similar: Rocket Lab. In their case, a vertical landing of the first phase does not occur, but instead It lands in the ocean with the help of a parachute. It is also useful, but recovery is more complicated. Furthermore, this company has not yet achieved complete reuse of the recovered rockets. Other companies, like the Chinese LandSpacethey also intend to follow in the footsteps of SpaceX, but are still carrying out tests. Importance for the future. Rocket reuse is important for many reasons. To begin with, what companies look at most: their economy. Not having to manufacture a new propellant with each launch greatly reduces costs and allows investment in other technologies. On the other hand, it is useful and necessary for reduce space debris levels. SpaceX does not stop generating new space junk by sending satellites into space. Few experts consider that the reuse of rockets will compensate for that, but it continues with its particular space greenwashing. SpaceX has made a lot of progress in this regard. Their reuse of rockets has already become routine, with more than 500 reused takeoffs from its Falcon 9. It has also been possible to reuse the powerful Starship. Even Rockets have been recovered in flight with a kind of giant Chinese chopsticks. Now, Blue Origin is closer, but if they want to continue in the competition they must be more accurate. An investigation is underway as to why the satellite did not end up in the correct orbit. When you find the answer, you can look for solutions. Images | Blue Origin | SpaceX In Xataka | Jeff Bezos asked his parents for their life savings to found Amazon. They only asked him one question: “What is the Internet?

making history. Orion has landed after a mission that we have not seen since Apollo

by

Artemis II already had a place in history assured before it even hit the water, but its closure gives the mission a different dimension. Orion has splashed down off the coast of San Diego (United States) and with this has culminated a ten-day trip that has returned astronauts to the vicinity of the Moon for the first time since 1972. What we have seen has not only been a round trip flight around our satellite, but also the validation in real conditions of a ship, a crew and a roadmap with which NASA and its international partners want to go further than ever. The key moment has arrived at 8:07 p.m. EDT on April 10, equivalent to 2:07 a.m. on April 11 in Spanish peninsular time. With this splashdown, Orion’s flight sequence is closed and a less visible, but equally measured phase begins: recovery in the ocean. We are not just talking about a capsule touching the water, but about the point at which a maneuver calculated to the minute gives way to helicopters, military means, medical checks and transfer of the crew out of the vehicle. Artemis II has made history: the most difficult return culminates over the Pacific The most delicate part was not the lunar flyby, but the return home. To return safely, Orion had to enter the atmosphere under the right conditions, with heat shield exposed after separating from the service module and prepared to withstand extreme conditions: intense friction, plasma around the capsule and a communications outage expected for six minutes. NASA had further explained that, in a nominal profile, the crew could withstand up to 3.9 G. Everything in this phase depended on physics, engineering and timing being exactly where they needed to be. The US space agency communicated this sequence in EDT time, but to better follow the outcome from Spain it is advisable to transfer it to peninsular time, where everything happened already in the early morning of April 11. 01:33: service module separation and heat shield exposure (completed) 01:37: final adjustment of entry path (completed) 01:53: start of upper atmosphere re-entry and start of communications blackout (completed) 02:03: opening of drogue parachutes at high altitude (filled) 02:04: deployment of three main parachutes to reduce descent speed (completed) 02:07: Orion splashdown off San Diego (completed) Before 04:07: crew recovery and transfer to support ship (earring) As we say, from this moment on the recovery device that NASA has deployed together with US military personnel off the coast of California comes into play. According to the sequence planned by the agency, the crew must be extracted from the capsule and transferred by helicopter to the USS John P. Murtha, where the first medical evaluations after ten days of mission. If we look at the mission as a whole, Artemis II leaves several well-defined milestones. It was the first manned flight beyond Earth’s orbit since 1972, it completed a lunar flyby without landing on the moon and established a new distance record for humans by exceeding 400,000 kilometers from Earth, above the Apollo 13 mark. In between so much hard data, Artemis II has also left small scenes capable of becoming fixed in the collective memory. There are the images of the hidden side of the Moon taken by the crewcaptures of a solar eclipse or video calls from deep space. And then there is the most unexpected detail of all, the one that gave the mission a touch of color in the middle of the institutional solemnity: a jar of Nutella appearing floating in the ship during one of the broadcasts. What comes next helps you better measure what you just finished. NASA now faces a demanding calendar phase for the next stages of the Artemis program, with a new mission already in preparation and with the focus on the operations that must support a future lunar landing. The next test will seek to advance that architecture with new maneuvers and tests before taking the next leap. When the images of the landing, the parachutes and the recovery in the Pacific pass, what will remain will be something much more profound than a postcard of the return. Artemis II will have shown that it is possible send astronauts back to the lunar environmentbring them back and successfully complete the most demanding part of the flight. Images | POT In Xataka | We knew there was water on the Moon, but not why some craters were empty. Finally we have the answer

Artemis II is a million-dollar mission, but its astronauts have had to wear t-shirts as blinds

by

Luckily, all the systems vital for the proper functioning of Orion they are going swimmingly on his trip to the Moon. However, he is having some more mundane unforeseen events, such as problems with outlook wave freezing of the urine reservoir. Added to all this is having to use t-shirts as blinds. And it was not an outburst from the astronauts, but rather direct instructions from Houston. Colder than at Pingu’s communion. The Orion capsule is not exactly the most air-conditioned place. It is very cold inside, so the Mission Control Team, from Earth, has been working to warm it up. Together with the crew, it was decided to move the ship so that it was as exposed to the Sun as possible. But there is a problem with that. The blinds that astronauts use to be able to sleep without the room becoming too bright absorb that heat and overheat. Possible damage to windows. If the blinds overheat, they could transmit that heat to the windows themselves, which would be at risk of damage. For this reason, the Control Team recommended to the crew on April 4 that they remove all the blinds. They explained to them that they understood that this would be very uncomfortable, since the interior of the capsule would be very illuminated. For this reason, they added a most strange recommendation: that they cover the windows with T-shirts. In the communication system recording, a crew member is heard complying with the order and indicating that they would follow the advice. But what advice. delicate windows. We might ask ourselves why it is necessary to protect the windows from the Sun if the ship is prepared to withstand the very high temperatures of re-entry into the atmosphere. It’s a good question, but the truth is that it is not the same type of heat. To begin with, reentry involves very great heat that spreads throughout the ship in a very short time. On the other hand, what comes from the windows is a much more focused and maintained heat. Orion’s heat shield protects it from the heat of reentry. Furthermore, the windows They have an outer layer of fused silica capable of withstanding 2,760ºC. But the inner layers are not as strong. Therefore, if they are exposed to solar radiation maintained and focused directly on them after being absorbed by the blinds, they may not withstand the heat. The future. Despite that small mishap, everything is going smoothly. In fact, Orion already has broken the record of going further than any other manned spacecraft and is close to beating another, reaching the highest speed at which any human being has traveled. If all goes well, this will happen next Friday, April 10, although in Spanish time it will already be the early morning of the 11th. In addition, they stand out for being the first lunar mission in which a woman, a black person and someone who is not American travel. It is not understood how in such an ambitious and expensive mission it has been necessary to use t-shirts as blinds, but at least it has been a failure that does not put the crew at risk. Images | NASA and Freepik In Xataka | For this alone, Artemis II has already been worth it: the impressive photos of the far side of the Moon

They have analyzed the coordinates of the rescue of the pilot in Iran. Not only do they not add up, they point to a very different mission from the US

by

In the most complex military operations, it is not uncommon for open data (images, coordinates or videos) to allow reconstruct scenarios with a level of detail that was previously only available to the intelligence services. In recent years, independent analysts have come to identify locationsmovements and even operational failures crossing public information in a matter of hours. Because sometimes, the key is not in what is told, but in how they fit (or don’t) the visible pieces. The official version: Mission Impossible. It we count yesterday. The official narrative describes a rescue operation on a large scale to recover a crew member from an F-15E Strike Eagle shot down in Iran, with special forces deployed on the ground, multiple aircraft involved and direct confrontations with Iranian units. The pilot would have survived thanks to his training, emitting a signal from an elevated area while elite teams located and extracted him in a complex but successful mission. However, from the beginning it has attracted attention the enormous cost material, with aircraft destroyed or damaged worth hundreds of millions of dollars, something disproportionate for a conventional rescue operation. The first step: follow the coordinates. More than 48 hours after the rescue, the analyst of the popular Simplicius Substack has compiled all the information that has appeared about the operation. Its analysis begins by dismantling the official version based on a basic element: geolocation. The first information places the demolition in the southwest of Iran, near the coast (about 80 km), an area consistent with the type of operations that a combat fighter of this type would carry out. The problem? That the appearance of the subsequent videos and remains identified on the land that we commented yesterdaywith C-130 transport planes and destroyed American helicopters, appear at hundreds of kilometers awayin the vicinity of Isfahan, which introduces a contradiction that is difficult to ignore and forces us to rethink the entire sequence of events. One more thing. As clarified Also the analyst, the geolocation of the CSAR (rescue operation) only showed a group of search helicopters passing through that areathat is, it did not geolocate the remains of the downed F-15E. For all we know, those helicopters could have been passing from there to the place of the accident in Isfahan. However, it must be remembered that even official sources from the main US media outlets, all with direct contacts in the government, initially reported that the accident occurred precisely in the area where the CSAR helicopters were sighted and geolocated. That is, the inconsistency in the geolocation found is not based solely in a single test. Plus: it seems evident that it makes more sense for an F-15E to be operating in the coastal area and not hundreds of km deep in Isfahan dropping short-range bombs, a task that should correspond to stealthier aircraft. Even so, a subsequent geolocation supposedly located the F-15E accident just south of Isfahan. C-130 and MH-6 helicopters destroyed The pieces don’t fit. From there, the data has accumulated inconsistencies that further distort the official version. For example, the use of huge transport planes to rescue a single pilot, the alleged mechanical failures that forced to destroy aircraft on the ground despite evidence of impacts and shrapnel through images and videos. Not only that. The lack of coherence about how was he evacuated to the staff after these failures generate more than reasonable doubts. What real chance is there that the two MC-130s that flew some 100 US special forces members to Iran to rescue the last F-15 crew member, suffer at the same time mechanical failures and could not take off? But even if it were true,how they managed then remove that same number of people after both planes suffered those “mechanical failures”? The photo used for geolocation, which shows the crater, belongs to an original series of photos with remains of the F-15E The landing strip. Each detail, in isolation, could be explained, but together they draw a pattern that suggests something else was going on. In fact, the analyst explained that the geolocated remains of the C-130s, which apparently used a local “agricultural landing strip”, are located just on the other side of a mountain, about 35 km from the Isfahan nuclear facilitywhere Iranian near-military-grade enriched uranium is supposedly stored. This result comes from the previous image, that is, this would place the distance between the two places of the remains at about 25 km. The location to the northwest is the F-15E crash site, and the location to the southeast is the C-130 wreckage field. The geolocated remains of the C-130s, which apparently used the agricultural landing strip (32.223369, 51.897678), and which are located just on the other side of a mountain, about 35 km from the Isfahan nuclear facility, where Iran’s near-military-grade enriched uranium is supposedly stored Plot twist: the nuclear hypothesis. That proximity, just 35 km southeast of one of Iran’s main uranium deposits, it doesn’t seem casual and opens an alternative hypothesis: that the rescue operation was actually a cover for a mission much more ambitious. In fact, Trump I had already spoken to extract Iranian uranium, an operation that would require the construction of landing strips in the country. Therefore, it is plausible that the plan was already underway for some time, while the American president bought time by stating that it was only a theoretical “possibility” under consideration. Under this scenario, the presence of special forces, the volume of resources deployed and the risk assumed seem to fit better as part of a clandestine operation than as a simple rescue. A parallel narrative. With the official data taken together, the story evolves towards a different interpretation in which airstrikes, special forces activity and even the possible disinformation campaign attributed to the CIA They would be part of a coordinated operation to distract, confuse and execute deeply hidden objectives. Of course, the rescue would still be real, but it would cease to be the main objective and become the … Read more

The US has rescued its most “brute” plane for an impossible mission

by

The 30 mm cannon an A-10 It can fire almost 4,000 projectiles per minute and its sound is so characteristic that soldiers identify it before even seeing the plane coming. In fact, for decades it has been one of the most recognizable symbols of air support in combat, although its withdrawal had already been decided. The war in Iran has resurrected it. Which means the return of the A-10. At this moment there are dozens of A-10s that have put heading to the Middle Eastand among military analysts that can only be due to one thing: that the United States has rescued its most “brute” plane for a mission that it seems impossibleand that points directly to a change in the nature of war. Because the Warthog It is not an aircraft designed for clean campaigns from high altitudes or for technological wars at a distance, but rather for flying low, “dirty” and shoot a few meters of the enemy supporting troops in direct contact. His massive deploymentalso in the twilight of its operational life, suggests that Washington is no longer thinking only about degrading Iranian capabilities from the air, but in scenarios where there will be soldiers on the ground who will need close, constant and brutal coverage. Distances in war. Hours before the deployment was known, they went viral some images of A-10s making unusually long strafing passes in Iraq (of more than 9 seconds), which gave an idea that they are not a technical anecdote, but rather a clue to what is changing on the battlefield. This type of use (long, less precise and unusual shots) only makes sense for dispersed, dynamic and close targets, as groups of combatantsnot infrastructure. That is, scenarios where the plane acts almost like aerial artillery in direct support of troops, reinforcing the idea that the conflict is evolving towards more chaotic, closer and less controlled confrontations. What the A-10 fits with. It we count yesterday. At the same time that these planes arrive, the United States does not stop to accumulate troopsspecial forces and logistics capabilities in the region, preparing operations that would no longer be only aerial but also incursions on the ground. The options being considered (from assaults on coastal installations to the taking of strategic enclaves like Kharg Island or missions for capture nuclear material) fit perfectly with the type of support that offers the A-10: close, persistent coverage designed to protect soldiers in high-risk situations. The plane thus appears as the missing piece to complete a hybrid war scenario that mixes air attacks with limited but intense ground operations. The strategic contradiction. All this occurs in parallel to a political speech from Washington increasingly contradictorywhere there is talk of ending the war in weeks while deployments are prepared that point just in the opposite direction. The possibility of closing the conflict without reopening the Strait of Hormuz reveals that the United States wants to limit its involvement, but the media accumulation (troops, drones, electronic warfare and now A-10) indicates that it is preparing for escalation if negotiations fail. In other words, we are facing a strategy that tries to keep all options open, but that in practice increases the risk of a deeper and longer war. Point of no return. If you like, on the whole, all the signs seem to converge in the same direction: the conflict is entering a phase where distance is no longer sufficient and direct contact points to be inevitable. The A-10, with its ability to operate at low altitude and punish nearby targets for long periods, symbolizes that shift toward a harsher warmore physical and more dangerous. In any case, it does not guarantee the success for the United States (in fact, his presence suggests how difficult what lies ahead will be for his troops), but it does confirm that Washington is preparing for a scenario where missiles and bombings will no longer be enough, but rather the ground will have to be held under constant fire with those thousands of soldiers that have been arriving in the Middle East. Image | US AIR, United States Air Force In Xataka | By launching more than 850 Tomahawks a month, the US was going to lose its war with Iran. So he has changed ammunition: thousands of soldiers In Xataka | The US had 17 irreplaceable “radar” planes: now it has 16 planes and many reasons to worry in Iran

NASA chose 34 points around the world to track its lunar mission and only one in Spain. It is in Seville, on a rooftop

by

If the weather behaves well and no problemsnext April 1 (early morning on April 2 in Spain) NASA will launch Artemis II. It will be the first manned mission of the Artemis programand in it four astronauts will travel aboard the Orion capsule to orbit around the Moon. during the mission 34 locations spread around the world will track the spacecraft’s radio signals and send their data to NASA. One of these headquarters will be in a special location: the roof of the Higher Technical School of Engineering of the University of Seville. A NASA antenna in Seville. In August 2025, NASA published an open call for third-party organizations to demonstrate their tracking capabilities during an actual manned mission. All types of organizations, agencies and institutions showed up, and even private radio amateurs also did so. Of the 34 selected around the world, the ETSi is the only Spanish center that will participate in this monitoring. The Orbisat system in operation. Source: Integrasys. space roof. It will do so in collaboration with Integrasys, a Spanish company specialized in this field and which has installed its platform on the roof of the ETSi building. Orbisat. This 2.5 meter high system has been developed at its Luxembourg subsidiary and is designed to track space vehicles both during launch and during subsequent operations. Plan B. The ETSi and the Orbisat system will receive the radio signals that the Orion spacecraft emits during its trip, process them and send them in real time to NASA for analysis. The key data they will measure is the Doppler effect of the signal: the variation in frequency of the waves depending on the relative speed between the ship and the antenna. It is a key parameter to determine both the position of the ship and to calculate its trajectory. It should be noted here that this system will not be responsible for the main monitoring, which will be done from the network Deep Space Network from NASA. This monitoring will be complementary and will help the agency evaluate what monitoring capabilities it can use outside of its own infrastructure. It’s a plan B. Why 34 antennas?. This support program responds to a very clear strategy of the space agency: build a public-private space tracking ecosystem that does not depend on its own network. Kevin Coggins, deputy director of the NASA SCaN programhe explained in the official announcement that “it is not about tracking a mission, but rather about building a resilient ecosystem that supports future exploration.” The initiative is an evolution of what was already done in 2022 with Artemis I, when ten volunteers tracked the unmanned mission. On that occasion, data format and quality problems were detected, and for Artemis II, participants have been forced to meet certain standards. An opportunity for Seville and for Integrasys. The Orbisat platform will be installed in Seville permanently, which turns the ETSi into a real monitoring infrastructure and not a one-off collaboration. For the company Integrasys, based in Las Rozas (Madrid), this first direct collaboration with NASA adds to those it already had with the Space Force and the US Space Command. Now it remains to be seen if this serves as a gateway to its participation also in future space missions such as Artemis III, which will land on the lunar surface. The Aerospace Technology Group of the University of Vigo will also participate in monitoring the mission. The students are in luck. The Master in Space Systems Operation at the University of Seville is taught for the first time in this 2025-26 academic year. Students will have direct access to the data generated by Orbisat during the Artemis II missionand with them they will be able to apply orbital determination and trajectory analysis techniques in that real scenario. For them this occasion is special, since they will be able to go beyond the books and have access to the telemetry of a manned spacecraft orbiting the Moon. A much more powerful way to learn, without a doubt. Spain on space map. The network of the 34 selected includes organizations such as the Canadian Space Agency, the German DLR, companies such as Telespazio and universities from Switzerland, Japan and the United States. Seville is on that list along with individual radio amateurs from California or South Dakota, amateur radio organizations such as AMSAT in Argentina or Germany, research centers in Cameroon or New Zealand and professional stations in Norway and the United Kingdom. The conclusion is clear: NASA has here the beginning of what can be a heterogeneous and decentralized network with monitoring capabilities. The Spanish participation on the Artemis II mission, by the way, goes a little furtherbut could go much further even. Image | NASA | ETSi In Xataka | In 2018, Elon Musk put his own car into orbit. Eight years later it is still circling the Earth

Sleeping in tourist class has been an impossible mission. Some airlines are testing three seats that convert into beds

by

Traveling in economy class on a long-haul flight usually means accepting a fairly clear toll: sleeping poorly or, at all, not sleeping at all. We have all experienced it, narrow seats, little space to stretch our legs and a posture that rarely invites rest. That discomfort is not a minor detail, it is part of the experience of flying in this segment. And yet, it is precisely there, in this very everyday problem, where some airlines are beginning to explore solutions within the economy cabin itself. If we go to the opposite extreme, we have seen the reference to what it would be like to fly in absolute comfort many times in airline campaigns. The Emirates ad with Jennifer Aniston illustrates this wellgoing from a cabin without notable services to a private suite with a completely flat bed, that is, to the premium end of the experience. The proposal is not limited to improving comfort, it completely redefines life on board. An attempt to make tourist class habitable And at that point is where we begin to see concrete movements. United just announced a proposal of this type with its call Relax Rowan option within its own economic class that seeks precisely to alleviate that problem. The company presents it as a specific row that, once in flight, can be adapted to stretch out or rest with a little more space. The airline plans to launch it in 2027, place it between United Economy and United Premium Plus and progressively deploy it on more than 200 Boeing 787s and Boeing 777 from now to 2030. But the truth is that this idea is not completely new. Air New Zealand has been exploring this concept for some time with his well-known Skycoucha proposal that also starts with a row of seats in economy class. In its case, the system allows the legrests to be raised until they form a continuous surface on which we can stretch. It is not equivalent to a premium cabin bed, but it does offer more versatile space than the conventional seat and the airline itself presents it as a way to gain comfort without paying for a superior cabin. If we go down to detail, the interesting thing is not so much the configuration itself, but what it allows once we are in flight. Both proposals seek to expand the available surface so that we can really stretch out, something that is not usually common for tourists. Air New Zealand specifies that area in about 1.55 meters long and 74 centimeters wideaccompanied by additional bedding, a seat cover and specific belts or restraint systems to use it safely. United, for its part, adds an adapted mattress, blankets, extra pillows and kits designed to make rest more bearable. With all this, the logical question is who is really compensated by this type of option. United’s promotional video gives us an idea. If we travel alone, having all that space gives us a much more usable surface to stretch out. In the case of couples, the idea is to share it in a more flexible way, alternating positions or using it to rest better during the flight. And if we think about families, especially with small children, Air New Zealand considers different configurations. Now, before imagining a perfect rest, it is worth taking into account some conditions. In the case of Air New Zealand, as we have seen, availability depends on the aircraftroute and operational or regulatory factors, and not all configurations are always accessible. In addition, the price is not fixed, since each passenger’s ticket is paid plus an additional cost for this option, while United has not yet detailed prices, although it has indicated that its deployment will be progressive. Taken together, these proposals don’t completely change what it means to fly economy class, but they do introduce an interesting nuance. The idea is not to replicate a first-class suite, but to offer a little more room to rest within the usual limitations. That balance between cost and convenience is what seems to be guiding these developments. Images | United Airlines In Xataka | Luxury superyachts have a new enemy in Monaco: a “low emissions zone” that will penalize those who pollute the most

The US Navy already knows what is going to happen to the planet. The mission to open Hormuz is the closest thing to a suicide operation

by

In the world there are only a dozen maritime passages capable of altering the global economy if they are blocked. Some are so narrow that, at certain points, they barely exceed 30 kilometers wide. However, millions of barrels of oil, huge ships of liquefied natural gas and a good part of the planet’s energy trade circulate through them every day. When one of those places goes into crisisthe impact it doesn’t take long to feel in markets, governments and homes around the world. And the Strait of Hormuz points to a unprecedented scenario. The impossible mission. Yes, the Strait of Hormuz has become the point most dangerous on the planet for global energy trade. Some 20 million barrels of oil daily (around 20% of global consumption) in addition to one fifth of liquefied natural gas that supplies numerous countries. The conflict with Iran has transformed that corridor into a war zone where attacks on oil tankers, drones, missiles and sabotage have paralyzed much of the traffic. But what is most revealing is not only the violence of the incidents, but Washington’s reaction: even the world’s largest naval power just recognized which is not prepared to escort oil tankers through the area. That delay is a clear sign of the magnitude of the problem, because if the US Navy needs weeks to organize convoys, and that is exactly the words they have usedthe implicit message for the markets is that the Gulf energy blockade may last much longer than many imagined. Convoys under fire. To understand it we must imagine the scenario. The idea of ​​accompanying oil tankers with warships seems, on paper, a direct solution. In practice, it is one of the riskiest missions that a modern navy can face. The convoys would need frigates and destroyers protecting the freighters while specialized units They search for mines and drones in an environment saturated with threats. The ships would be exposed to anti-ship missiles launched from mobile trucks off the Iranian coast, swarms of explosive speedboats, kamikaze drones and possible mines hidden in the strait. To completely eliminate these threats, some analysts they even propose something Washington would prefer to avoid: a ground operation to control the Iranian coast that dominates the sea passage. This scenario explains why military planners speak of a “very complicated” situation: reopening the strait does not depend only on naval superiority, but on neutralizing an entire ecosystem of asymmetric warfare. Iranian missile boat moments before being attacked The cheapest weapon to paralyze commerce. And among all the threats, one stands out for its effectiveness: naval mines. We are talking about simple, cheap and extremely disruptive weapons that can transform a maritime corridor in a death trap. Even a few mines in a narrow spot are enough to paralyze traffic, because shipping companies and their insurers simply refuse to take the risk. Iran has several types of these devices, from floating mines to models anchored to the seabed capable of detonating charges of more than one hundred kilos of explosives upon contact. Not only that. You can also display them in ways difficult to detect: from small boats camouflaged as fishing boats or by divers who attach them to the hull of the ships. History, in fact, has already demonstrated his powerbecause mines have damaged more American ships than any other weapon naval since World War II. Hence its true effect is not to sink ships, but to sow enough fear to block traffic. Map with the strategic location of the Strait of Hormuz The invisible lock. The paradox of this type of war is that it is not necessary to mine the entire strait to close it. In reality, it is enough the simple suspicion. The reason is simple: in such a narrow channel, the presence of a few mines requires inspection every meter of water with sonar, underwater drones and specialized ships. A slow and dangerous process, especially if the enemy continues to lay new mines or attack demining units. Plus: recent experience in the black sea has shown that even uncertainty about their presence can keep commercial ships away for months. And in the Persian Gulf the same thing happens: Thousands of ships wait for instructions while the risk of mines, missiles or drones turns each voyage into a gamble. Oil as a geopolitical hostage. There is no doubt, all this gives Iran a strategic power of large dimensions. Before the conflict, about a fifth of the world’s oil passed through Hormuz daily. With this altered flow, energy prices react immediately and governments release strategic reserves to contain the impact. The strait thus becomes a colossal geopolitical lever: Even if the war were to end soon, something that is currently a utopia, an Iranian regime still capable of launching drones, missiles or mines could keep threatening maritime traffic when it suits you. That means oil and gas can stay hostage of Gulf stability for a long time, something that worries both the markets and Washington’s regional allies. There is no easy way out. Under this scenario, the dilemma For the United States it is evident. Stopping the war too soon could leave intact Iran’s ability to blockade the strait and put pressure on global energy markets. Continuing it could require a major climbincluding land operations or prolonged naval campaigns to ensure the security of the sea passage. Meanwhile, the conflict has already demonstrated something truly disturbing: even in the face of a military power like the United States, Iran retains enough tools to disrupt the global energy system. That is why the real alarm signal is not only the closure of Hormuz, but the realization that opening it may be much more difficult (and expensive) than many thought at the beginning of the war. Image | US NAVY, Oils & Fats international In Xataka | China has just found a hole in the US’s quietest weapon: an algorithm has hacked its B-2s in Iran In Xataka | The great paradox of war: the … Read more

NASA already has a new date for its manned mission around the Moon

by

Since Apollo 17, no human being has traveled to lunar orbit again. More than five decades have passed since that last manned flight to the satellite, and the return has not been exactly quick or easy. He Artemis program accumulates delays, technical reviews and calendar adjustments, and the Artemis II has also had to stop recently due to a problem detected in the rocket’s helium system. Even so, there is an important novelty: after completing the repairs,NASA has already pointed out a first launch opportunity for this mission that will once again take astronauts to the Moon’s environment. The Date. Following a flight readiness review, the US space agency announced that it is working with April 1, 2026 as the first opportunity to launch Artemis II. That initial attempt is scheduled for 6:24 p.m. (Eastern time in the United States), which in mainland Spain is equivalent to 12:24 a.m. on April 2. This schedule comes after repairing a problem in the rocket’s helium system, an element that regulates the pressure of the fuel tanks and which forced the vehicle to be removed from the platform to replace a defective seal. Artemis II launch window schedule for April 2026 How launch windows work. In space exploration we do not work with rigid dates, but with periods of opportunity. A launch window is the interval in which the rocket can take off to follow the planned trajectory and meet the mission objectives. That margin depends on very precise orbital calculations that take into account the position of the Earth, the destination and the energy necessary to complete the trip. If the vehicle cannot take off within that interval, the attempt is canceled and you must wait for the next available window. Guaranteed launch? Although there is a calendar with concrete opportunities, each attempt still depends on several factors that must be aligned at the last moment. Technical teams continue to work in both the assembly building and the Kennedy Space Center launch infrastructure, and the rocket itself must return to the pad before beginning the final sequence. During a press appearance, Lori Glaze, acting associate administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, remembered that there is still work to be completed and that the launch will depend on what the hardware itself indicates. Added to all this is the time, because in a mission like this you cannot operate with the risk of lightning, precipitation, hail or excessive winds. Ground travel. The Space Launch System rocket must first return to the Kennedy Space Center pad from the assembly building. Once there, teams must prepare the vehicle and facilities for the takeoff attempt within the available window. This type of operation requires continuous reviews and coordination between different systems, so it is not always possible to attempt a launch the next day. In fact, Lori Glaze noted that, within the first six days of April, the agency anticipates around four real attempt opportunities. The return. When it finally takes off, Artemis II will mark the return of a human crew to the Moon’s environment for the first time since 1972. The mission will take on board American astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Christina Koch, along with Canadian Jeremy Hansen, on a flight of about ten days around the satellite. The plan is for the Orion spacecraft to circle the far side of the Moon, the region we never see from Earth, before beginning the return journey. This flight will serve to check the operation of the systems in real conditions before the next steps of the Artemis program, which aims to take astronauts back to the lunar surface on subsequent missions. Images | POT In Xataka | We already know what we will eat on the moon: Madrid stew. An American team manages to grow chickpeas in lunar regolith

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.