reason

“Being a gossip” is enough reason for dismissal for the director of a bank branch

by

They say that curiosity killed the cat, and if that curiosity belongs to the director of a CaixaBank office, it is most likely that her position is in danger. As an example of this, the person in charge of an office of that entity in a small town in Gerona who was fired for “gossiping” about the bank details of people in her town. The courts called it fraud and breach of trust. The case reached the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, which confirmed that the disciplinary dismissal It was completely justified. Curiosity killed the cat. As detailed in the sentence issued By the Catalan Superior Court of Justice, in November 2023, CaixaBank detected anomalous accesses to its customer database. The director of the Les Preses (Gerona) office had been accessing clients’ banking information without apparent justification. An internal audit revealed the magnitude of the problem: between November 3, 2022 and December 11, 2023, management had made inquiries about 170 different clients on 210 different days. The most serious thing was the pattern since of those 170 clients consulted, 84 were family members or people in their close circle, and 121 lived in the same town where the director lived. The searches were done mainly by first and last name, something very unusual in banking operations normal in which the user’s ID is used to avoid confusion between users with identical first and last names. The explanations that did not convince anyone. When the audit investigated the accesses, the director tried to justify herself. First he said it was common to review customer accounts at other offices to confirm that cash transfers between users had been completed correctly. He then stated that some customers had asked him for help because they had had access problems from the application of the mobile. But as more information became known, those excuses began to lose foundation. The bank confirmed before the court that the majority of those 170 clients had connected through the mobile application on the same day that the director consulted their accounts, which showed that they did not need its intervention. Without arguments, all he was left with was the truth: she was a gossip. Finally, the worker admitted that she had consulted this data because of “xafardería”, a Catalan term that means simple curiosity or gossip. She acknowledged that she had not done so at the clients’ request nor was she looking for specific information, but rather motivated by curiosity to know the payments and financial movements of her family, friends and neighbors. He also assured that I had not shared that information with nobody. However, this confession was not enough to save him from the consequences: immediate disciplinary dismissal. There was abuse of trust and the TSJC confirmed it. CaixaBank did not hesitate to act when the conclusions of the internal investigation were known. On January 31, 2024, he was notified of his disciplinary dismissal on the grounds that his actions constituted a “very serious breach of contractual good faith, fraud and abuse of trust”, in accordance with the provisions of article 54.2.d) of the Workers’ Statute and article 76.4 of the current Collective Agreement for savings banks and financial entities. The Social Court number 1 of Figueras supported this decision on July 26, 2024. The worker tried to appeal to the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, but the court rejected all her arguments. The court concluded that “there is no justification” for these consultations and that the conduct “contradicted the code of ethics and the confidentiality regulations that must govern a business as sensitive as banking.” The sentence left no room for doubt, declaring the dismissal proper and definitive. A lesson in trust and responsibility. As and how they stand out in the specialized environment Economist & Juristthis case leaves important lessons about how access to sensitive information in a financial institution is a privilege that carries responsibility. The director had received training on data protection and the code of ethics, so she was fully aware of the rules she was breaking. His position in the office gave him access to private data of hundreds of people, and used that access to sensitive information to satisfy simple curiosity. Due to the recurrence of the consultations, the courts understood that this was not an isolated case, but rather a deliberate pattern of conduct that violated the trust placed in it by the entity and its clients. In Xataka | The EU has once again taken a look at the Spanish labor market and has once again reminded Spain of something: firing is too cheap Image | Unsplash (Rodrigo Rodrigues)

Alphabet has just overtaken Apple as the most valuable company in the world. The reason is in AI

by

Alphabet closed Wednesday with a valuation of $3.88 billion, above Apple’s $3.84 billion. Your actions they have risen 2% while Apple’s have fallen 4% in five days. Why is it important. This advance reflects the financial consequences of two opposing strategies in the AI ​​race: Alphabet has bet big and Apple has hesitated. And the market is already punishing indecision. The contrast. Alphabet presented in November ironwoodits seventh generation of TPU chips as an alternative to NVIDIA, and in December it launched Gemini 3 with an excellent welcome. Meanwhile, Apple keeps postponing its “new Siri” until in a few months. The difference in development capacity and distribution speed is noticeable: Alphabet’s stock rose 65% in 2025, its best year since 2009. Apple’s barely grew 9%, below the 16.4% of the S&P 500. Between the lines. Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet, has been able to translate the high demand for AI infrastructure into gigantic contracts. On the October earnings call with analysts and investors said that Google Cloud had signed more deals over $1 billion in the first three quarters of 2025 than in 2023 and 2024 combined. Apple, on the other hand, remains caught in uncertainty over when and how it will integrate AI into its consumer products. The new Siri has become entrenched, left victims along the way and has positioned Apple as a company that was caught on the wrong foot by the rise of generative AI, without taking risks. Decisive moment. This reversal of positions marks the end of an era in which Apple dominated due to the inertia of the iPhone and the beginning of another in which anyone who does not have a clear and convincing AI strategy risks being left behind, no matter how iconic their logo may be. The market never pays for the past. In Xataka | In the midst of the RAM memory crisis, Samsung takes a leap with its HBM4 memory. It does not imply good news for the pocket Featured image | Rubaitul Azad

NVIDIA already has its own Autopilot. And Tesla has reason to worry

by

NVIDIA has presented at the CES 2026 Alpamayo, a family of open source AI models designed specifically for autonomous vehicles. The system not only detects obstacles and plans routes, it “reasons” about complex situations and explains your driving decisions. Mercedes-Benz will be the first to implement it in the CLA, which will arrive in the United States in the first quarter of 2026. Why is it important. Tesla has kept its FSD system completely closed since 2016, and now NVIDIA is betting on releasing the weights of the model, the framework of simulation and more than 1,700 hours of driving data. This strategy can make NVIDIA “the Android of autonomous mobility” and allow any manufacturer to access capabilities comparable to Tesla’s without requiring years of internal development. The contrast: Tesla sells its FSD as a proprietary system integrated only into its cars, generating recurring income from your own clients. NVIDIA wants to sell chips to the entire industry, providing the base technology for others to build their systems. The first model earns more per individual sale, but the second can scale exponentially if multiple manufacturers adopt the platform. In detail. Alpamayo 1 is a 10 billion parameter model that processes video and generates both a trajectory and the logic behind each decision. Jensen Huang has described it as the “ChatGPT moment for physics AI.” The Mercedes CLA will integrate 30 sensors (cameras, radar, ultrasonic…) and will be marketed as a “Level 2+” system, similar to Tesla’s FSD in that it requires constant attention from the driver. Between the lines. NVIDIA’s move seems really good from a regulatory point of view: By generating a “reasoning traceability” that explains every decision, it reassures regulators who are often terrified by black-box models. And by releasing the code, it hooks startups and manufacturers in your CUDA ecosystem. If you can’t develop autonomy yourself (most traditional manufacturers can’t), you just use Alpamayo… and run it on NVIDIA chips. The threat. For Tesla, this means the dreaded commoditization of a technology that has been its main differentiator. If Mercedes delivers FSD-like capabilities in March based on a system that any brand can buy, Tesla’s sales pitch weakens. Elon Musk You have already commented on this announcement on your X profile: “It’s easy to get to 99%, then it’s very difficult to solve the rest.” It also seems like an implicit admission that Tesla hasn’t solved that final problem either. Yes, but. Open source does not guarantee success or similarity with Android in telephony. Actual implementation, integration with specific sensors and validation in real conditions remain complex. Tesla has been accumulating millions of kilometers of driving data for years. NVIDIA offers 1,700 hours, a tiny fraction in comparison. The question is whether that data advantage for Tesla offsets the distribution advantage NVIDIA can get by partnering with multiple manufacturers. Time and the market will tell. In Xataka | If it seems expensive to change the battery in an electric car, wait until you see what it costs in a Ferrari LaFerrari: more than 200,000 euros Featured image | Pixilustration

that it would not have happened to North Korea for a very simple reason

by

When we talk about isolated and sanctioned states, an enclave usually emerges in the conversation at some point. North Korea has every chance to join that list of nations with dubious qualifications. And yet, after the attack from Washington to Caracasone idea is repeated insistently: this would not have happened to Pyongyang. That uncomfortable idea. Yes, after the attack, a phrase is repeating in the analyzesgatherings and networks:“This would not have happened to North Korea”. It is not an ideological slogan or a gratuitous provocation, but an almost empirical verification that points to the heart of the real international system, not the one taught in manuals. The reason: Venezuela lacks nuclear weapons, and North Korea has intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads capable of reaching US territory. That difference, alone, explains much more than decades of resolutions, treaties and solemn declarations on sovereignty, legality and world order. International legality as a story. It happens that the operation against Venezuela has been described by jurists and international organizations as a flagrant violation of international law. However, that sentence has not had (nor does it seem that it will have) practical consequences. It has not stopped the operation, nor reversed its effects nor imposed real costs on the actor who carried it out. From that perspective, it is not an anomaly of the system, it is, rather, its normal functioning. International legality has never been an independent coercive mechanism, but a regulatory framework whose effectiveness ultimately depends on the balance of power. When this balance does not exist, the law is reduced to a moral language that accompanies the facts, but does not condition them. Nuclear deterrence: the frontier. The contrast with North Korea is revealing. We are talking about a nation capable of launching missiles simply because the “neighbor” visits China. Pyongyang is an isolated, sanctioned State, with a violation history of human rights and UN resolutions against them much more extensive than the Venezuelan one. And yet, no one is seriously considering a direct military operation to capture their leader or impose regime change by force. The reason is starkly simple: North Korea may respond with what we call nuclear escalation. In that sense, deterrence does not guarantee peace or justice, of course, but it does guarantee survival. In the real international system, the nuclear weapon functions as the only fully recognized life insurance. Iran and Venezuela. The Iran situation fits the same logic. Tehran has been getting closer for years to the nuclear thresholdaware that Libya, Iraq or Venezuela show the fate of States that renounce (or do not arrive in time) to this type of deterrence. Until Iran definitively crosses that line, it remains exposed to limited attacks, sabotage, targeted assassinations and indirect military pressure. Venezuela, without a nuclear program or credible deterrence umbrella, has proven to be even more vulnerable: not only to sanctions or pressure, but to a direct intervention designed to “extirpate” the political leadership, just as it has happened. The Non-Proliferation Treaty. He Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty It was born with an implicit promise: States that renounced nuclear weapons would obtain collective security and respect for their sovereignty. What’s happening? that the reality has denied that promise over and over again. At least until now, no non-nuclear state has been defended militarily by the international system against a great power determined to act. On the contrary, states that have managed to equip themselves with nuclear deterrents (from North Korea to Pakistan) have ensured their practical inviolability, regardless of their internal or external behavior. The message that other countries draw seems obvious and deeply destabilizing: following the rules does not protect you, but having the damn bomb does. USA and the royal hierarchy. If you also want, the Venezuelan operation It does not inaugurate this logic, but it makes it visible in an almost pedagogical way. The United States has not acted outside the international system, but from its top. It has shown that the global hierarchy remains asymmetrical and that sovereignty is conditional for those who cannot impose an intolerable cost on an aggressor. Seen this way, the comparison with North Korea is not an anti-Western provocation, but rather an a priori, realistic reading of the facts: the law is applied where there is balance, and where there is none, force rules. What we don’t want to say. This being the case, the lesson left by the attack on Venezuela is uncomfortable because it dismantles decades of rhetoric, or almost so. International legality has not disappeared now, perhaps because it has never existed as an autonomous shield. It has always been a reflection of power. and North Korea is not untouchable because he is right, but because he can just destroy. Venezuela was not attacked because it is more illegitimate, of course, but because in that sense it is weaker. That is why Iran is moving towards the nuclear thresholdbecause he has learned that lesson by observing others. That the international system does not reward compliance, but rather the ability to deter. Everything else is story. Image | GoodFon, Gary Todd In Xataka | North Korea is sending its soldiers to the most sinister place in Ukraine: one where drones are not the problem, but where you step In Xataka | The North Koreans are hungry, so they have started hunting tigers. It’s just the tip of the iceberg

Hotel chains are strengthening their loyalty programs for a reason that has nothing to do with hotels: AI

by

Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt, three of the largest hotel chains in the world, are accelerating their loyalty programs to get direct reservations, he explains Financial Times. The immediate objective is to save the 15-25% commissions they pay to Booking or Expedia, but the real concern is another: to prepare for when AI agents book trips for us. Why is it important. Who controls the relationship with the client when the AI agents become widespread will control the business. Hotel chains have seen this movie before: This is what happened to e-commerce stores that sold directly, but were disintermediated by Amazon Marketplace. Or to the bloggers who went from publishing on their own websites to platforms like Substack, which promised range and parne. Or the developers who went from selling software directly to depending on the Apple and Google stores. Or, ahem, the media that lost control of distribution to, basically, Google. The facts. Hotel chains are promoting their programs: Marriott Bonvoy reached 260 million members in September, up 18% from a year ago. Hilton is making it easier to access higher tiers while partnering to use points outside of its wallet. Marriott’s CFO has already stated that AI bookings “could be cheaper than OTAs.” Translation: they prefer to pay commissions to OpenAI than to Booking. But only if they maintain control of the data and the relationship with the customer. Between the lines. The obsession with loyalty programs has its logic. If they can get 260 million people to be “Bonvoy members” with registered preferences and accumulated points, when the AI ​​agents arrive they will have to count on them. Or so they hope. Because this strategy assumes that AI agents will care about brands. But maybe not. Yes, but. A really useful conversational agent will scan all the available offer, compare prices in real time, read thousands of reviews and book. Without needing to see any interface. Without the brand mattering too much. Optimizing for price, location and reviews, not whether it’s a Marriott or a Hilton. If the customer never sees the brand, many decades and many dollars invested in brand recognition evaporate. The big question. Who will we trust more: Booking, which we know charges the hotel a commission, or an AI agent whose incentives we do not know to take us to one place or another? At least current platforms are transparent: they charge the hotel and you pay for what you see. With opaque agents making decisions for us, we won’t even have that. In perspective. This pattern will be repeated in dozens of industries. Insurance comparators, marketplacesrestaurant reservations, investment selection… Any digital intermediary whose value is “helping you choose” can be replaced by an AI agent that chooses for you. Hotels will not be the only ones building loyalty walls. Any company whose contact with the end customer is intermediated by digital platforms should be preparing. Because AI agents won’t arrive in five years. The first ones are already here, clumsy, but improving every quarter. In Xataka | AI agents are very useful, until they turn against you to leak information: the dangers of ‘prompt injection‘ Featured image | Michael Mrozek

It turns out that a longevity expert has said something that makes sense. And the reason is the juices

by

Peter Diamandis has returned. The famous doctor and engineer specializing in longevity has once again made simple dietary advice viral: “if you like oranges, eat them whole and not in juice.” And, to the surprise of all of us who closely follow the worldit’s a good idea. Beyond the joke, longevity is becoming serious. Very serious indeed. Since an open microphone confirmed to us in September that longevity is becoming a crucial issue for oligarchs of the present, it is impossible not to look at this community of researchers, influencers and entrepreneurs in a “different way”. However, the reality is obvious: most advice on how to live longer is a mix of cherry picking, scientific sensationalism and common sense. Ultimately, to the extent that society is increasingly obsessed with living longerthe ‘market’ for these types of ideas is growing (for better and worse). And Diamandis is a good example. As They explained in El Confidencialthis entrepreneur and researcher has a very long list of dietary ideas: from withdrawing dairy products due to the body’s inflammatory response to casein to avoiding red meat due to its saturated fats (basing his diet almost exclusively on vegetables and whole foods). As we saw a few days ago with other well-meaning advicethese kinds of ideas make some sense, yes. However, every heuristic has two sides: it illuminates a certain part of reality and helps us manage it more easily. But it hides other parts and makes it seriously difficult to be aware of them. But, let’s get to the juices. Because that is the latest advice that has been vitalized is precisely that: that the debate has never been “yes fruit” or “no fruit.” ¡Of course you have to consume fruit! The debate is how we consume it and in juice it is, possibly, the worst way. By squeezing the pieces of fruit, we not only reduce the fiber but we end up consuming something completely different: satiety is worse and sugar absorption is improved. When we talk about fruit being good, what we are saying is that we need the fiber it contains for its metabolic and satiety effects. Oh really? So much so that organizations like the AESAN they insist repeatedly that juice does not replace whole fruit. And yes, I know that for many it is a commonplace (and something very well known), but it never hurts to repeat it: the consumption of rooting fruit has fallen 14% in recent years. We already know that it is good advice, but also worse for longevity. Here, the truth is that the evidence is less clear. Above all, because it is never enough to ‘stop recommending something’, we must go further and put better options on the table. And yes, water is always an option. But unfortunately, it is not always a substitute for the social consumption of juices. Image | Zlatko Duric In Xataka | One of the leading experts on aging has just explained what he himself does to live longer. It makes sense

The real reason why Musk, Bezos and Pichai want to build data centers in space: bypass regulation

by

The construction of data centers is proliferating so much that although the largest in the world They are in Kolos (Norway), in The Cidatel (United States) and China, you can find them now even in Botorritain the province of Zaragoza. The limit is the sky. Or well, not even that: because Silicon Valley has been put between eyebrows set up data centers in space. And the main big tech companies are making moves to achieve this. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt bought rocket company Relativity Space with that objective. Nvidia has supported the startup Starcloud in its project to launch the first NVIDIA H100 GPU into space a few weeks ago and Elon Musk has even condensed how he would do it in a tweet: “It will be enough to scale the Starlink V3 satellites, which have high-speed laser links.” He when Jeff Bezos slipped it in a prediction at the Italian Tech Week: We will see “giant training clusters” of AI in orbit in the next 10 to 20 years. The moon is a gift from the universe The next question would be “why?”. The reality is that there is no shortage of reasons. AI is a real energy guzzler and as demand does not stop growingspace offers a couple of differential advantages over Earth: almost unlimited energy and free cooling. On the one hand, in space we have a sun-synchronous orbit where solar panels receive energy almost continuously. On the other hand, you can install a radiator so large that the space functions as a kind of ‘infinite heat sink at -270°C’. The enormous amounts of water essential for cooling on Earth would not be needed. Let’s face it, today there are no plans to have data centers in space. But not too far away: University of Central Florida research professor and former NASA member Phil Metzger esteem that perhaps within a decade it could be economically viable. But its viability is so clear that it considers that taking AI servers into space are “the first real business case that will give way to many more“in the face of a future human migration beyond Earth. So for now, they try it on Earth. Consequence: that Donald Trump declare an energy emergency due to the enormous electricity demand expected for the coming years. As the power grid catches up (or tries to), AI companies have decided to move from a passive to a proactive position: Meta is going to become an electricity marketer. xAI by Elon Musk is using gas turbines as energy sources temporary. OpenAI is pushing to the United States government to lend a hand to electricity companies to add 100 gigawatts per year. That figure doesn’t say much, but it is astronomical: what OpenAI is asking for is that The United States built almost an entire Spain (around 145 GWh considering the 129 GW consolidated at the end of 2024 plus the solar and wind deployment of 2025) every year and a half in terms of infrastructure. AI is growing faster than electrical bureaucracy is advancing How could the Trump Administration help? With the eternal bureaucracy. Because on Earth they face great technical challenges, but they also face a legislative wall. To have more energy, the simplest and most immediate step is to build new power plants, but that means successfully going through the tangle of procedures that slow down the process. There is only one small problem: that in the United States depending on technology, it can take five to ten years… if you’re lucky. Interconnection to the grid alone can take six years, successfully overcoming an interconnection queue with more than 2,000 GW in projects who are already in line. Then, up to four years of federal and environmental permits to end in another couple of years for state and local licenses that must come to fruition. ‘Permit Stack’ they call it. And the journey does not end here: they must also avoid andthe citizen movementNot in my backyard‘ (not in my backyard, kind of like “yes, but not in my house”), which has already backed down the Battle Born Solar Project (Nevada), which was going to be the largest solar plant in the United States, or Danskammer gas station (New York), among others. This can delay the operation even further as rights of way must be negotiated with individual owners who may refuse, going through the courts again. The never ending story. To avoid processes NIMBY that last fifteen years or more, companies like OpenAI or Microsoft are buying plants that already exist, such as Three Mile Island, which is going to reopen only for Microsoftinstead of trying to build new ones from scratch. Amazon has also signed infrastructure that is already on the network like the Talen Energy Campus and it has partnered with Dominion Energy and X-energy to develop mini reactors (SMR). SMRs are also Google’s solution, in this case thanks to an agreement with Kairos Power. Everything is to avoid that tangle of ‘Permit stack’ procedures that in practice and according to estimates, makes it is faster to opt for the space route to build a power plant on the old, familiar Earth. At the end of the day for AI companies “The moon is a gift from the universe”, as already Jeff Bezos glimpsed. In Xataka | Musk has created the perfect circle: Tesla’s megabatteries power the AI ​​that will define its next cars In Xataka | Researchers have dismantled the batteries of Tesla and BYD. You already know which one performs better and is much cheaper. Cover | İsmail Enes Ayhan and NASA

Bermuda shouldn’t be there, but there is a compelling reason for it to remain after 30 million years

by

Bermuda is an anomaly in themselvessince it is normal that they were not there. To understand it, you have to know that this volcanic archipelago was formed 30 million years ago, and the normal thing, after so much time of inactivity, is that the oceanic crust would have cooled and sank. But this has not happened, and science now believes it knows why. The study. A priori the islands should be submerged, but They are still there elevated about 500 meters above what would correspond and Yale University wanted to find the solution. And the truth is that they have found it hidden 20 kilometers under our feet. An x-ray of 400 earthquakes. To solve the mystery, researchers did not use excavators but seismic waves. Analyzing the data of almost 400 earthquakes recorded by the BBSR station in the Bermudathe team managed to create a map of the innermost layers beneath the archipelago. What they found is a unique structure in the world: a lower layer about 20 kilometers thick located right between the planet’s crust and mantle. And its function is really important, since it acts as a floating support that keeps the Bermuda on the surface without sinking. And all thanks to the fact that it has a much lower density than the material that surrounds it that generates a buoyant force. Something unique. Beyond understanding why Bermuda is still there, we also see that this is a very unusual structure. So much so that it is unlike anything seen in other similar archipelagos, such as Hawaii. Its origin. When it comes to finding out how that plate is in its current location, there are several theories currently in force among the scientific community. The first of them is based on the fact that a remnant of volcanic activity from 30 million years ago was “sealed” under the crust. The second theory that is used focuses on a chemical process where sea water penetrates the rocks of the mantle, altering them and making them less dense, and, therefore, causing them to float. But whatever the origin, the study confirms that Bermuda sits on a tectonic anomaly that defies geological models. The end of myths. The truth is that Bermuda has always been a great mystery, starring for example in the ‘Bermuda Triangle‘ where it is said that things like airplanes disappear. Something that we try to explain with the meteorological phenomena that develop in this location. But what seems to have finally turned out is how Bermuda was in that location when it should have been on the seabed for many years. Although this has only made geologists have to rethink how tectonic plates work under the oceans. In Xataka | Spain turns in the opposite direction to the rest of Europe. It is part of a geological plan: close the Mediterranean

Welding in space is a physical nightmare, but the UK has a good reason to try it

by

We have entered a point where great nations have one objective: spatial autonomy. And, although many factors come into play, one of the most important is the ability to manufacture and assemble in space. As? Welding directly in space, but although we have seen it in science fiction on numerous occasions, things get complicated when we want to apply it to the real world. Now, a British university believes it has found the solution. A ‘Wall-e‘ welder. Nightmare. Soldering on Earth is an extremely simple process. We only have to apply a very high temperature and both gravity and the atmosphere make it easy for us. In space, the thing changesturning something routine into a real physical nightmare. There are three elements that come into play: Microgravity: on Earth, gravity causes the drop of the binding metal (tin, for example) to fall on the elements to be joined. In space, since there is no gravity, surface tension is the dominant source: the molten metal does not stay in place, but tends to form spheres. Additionally, gas does not escape from the molten metal, causing porosities and further structural weakness. Pressure: There is no oxidation because there is no oxygen, but there is also no pressure, which lowers the boiling point of certain alloys. This can cause, at certain temperatures, some critical components of the metal to evaporate rather than melt. Again: the chemistry of the solder and the properties of the joint are altered. The politics of discard. If that were not enough, welding in space is a nightmare for astronauts who have suits that limit their movements and who would always be under the pressure of a spark or slag piercing the suit. Goodbye astronaut. That is why administrations have become accustomed to the logistics of disposal: rather than repairing something, it is better to throw it away and launch something new from Earth. Less risks, fewer headaches. ISPARK. Clearly, it clashes with the most current policy: that of recycling. A few days ago we saw that, while NASA wants to throw down the International Space Station to the trash, there are those who want to recycle it to take advantage of all the elements it has. And building platforms in space based on smaller parts is more reasonable than launching those pre-assembled structures from Earth. That’s where the discovery from the University of Leicester, in the United Kingdom. In collaboration with TWI Ltd, they have launched what they have called “ISPARK Project”, or “Intelligent SPace Arc-welding Robotic Kit”. It is not a new physical welding, but a robot to do the work. There are still issues that can compromise the integrity of the weld itself, but having a robot do the job eliminates the extreme risk for astronauts. And, precisely, the researchers point out that achieving this “will redefine how large structures are built and maintained in orbit” in the new era of the space economy. They are not the only ones, since companies like ThinkOrbital wave University of Texas they are also pushing this possibility. Roadmap. It must be clarified that it is a technology that has to be tested. The first step will be to subject the robotic system to tests in chambers that simulate the vacuum of space to verify both that the electric arc and that the behavior of the materials are stable in an environment without an atmosphere. In addition to the direct results, they will compare with a digital twin. It is a technology that virtualizes (thanks to computer calculations) the physics of welding in vacuum and microgravity. It is data with which they will train the robot, but also with which they will compare the results of the physical world. And, if everything goes well, in later phases the objective is to test it in orbital reality conditions. This is where other factors come into play such as radiation or dynamic thermal cycles (conditions of extreme cold and heat in a matter of an instant). In search of autonomy. Little joke with this. The “Smart Space Arc Welding Robotic Kit” has received funding through the UK Space Agency’s National Space Innovation Programme. Specifically, 560,000 pounds to develop this system. Everything is framed within a larger program of the Agency, which will allocate 17 million pounds to 17 space innovation projects. If we look at the global European “photo”, it is contextualized within a reality in which we also see that the European Space Agency seeks one thing: autonomy. The British agency and the ESA are tired of depending on NASA either Roscosmos for their space missions, and we are seeing how they develop technologies or inject more than 900 million euros to find a European replacement for SpaceX. And, obviously, assembling and fixing in space is much more sustainable than continuing to create technology that costs hundreds of millions of euros and is disposable. Images | University of Leicester In Xataka | We are launching more things into space than ever before. And the next problem is already on the table: how to pollute less

China is launching more rockets into space than ever before. And the reason is very simple: not to depend on Starlink

by

China has taken the lead in a disputed area: that of space sovereignty. To talk about space is to think directly about the POTbut the photo has changed in recent years. The space race It is no longer just a matter of government agencies, but also of private companies as SpaceXthe Spanish PLD Space either Blue Origin. Europe seeks its space without depending on anyone and countries like China and India are taking steps to expand your borders by looking into space. And, earlier this month, China complete four space missions. It is a clear blow to the United States. Rhythm. 2025 has marked a turning point in China’s aerospace industry. The country has broke his record of launches with more than 80 orbitals throughout the year (it was on 68 launches), adding the one with three Long March rockets taking off less than 19 hours apart. Something like this is within the reach of very few. Specifically, only within the reach of SpaceX in terms of pace. stress test. The litmus test took place at the beginning of December, when the Chinese space agency carried out a stress test on its system. Between the 5th and 9th of this month, China overloaded its entire launch chain. They used four different launch sites to test the extent to which their launch, logistics and telemetry centers could operate in good conditions. With this, the country wanted to check to what extent its different centers can operate almost in parallel, without interference and without hindering each other. This is key for routine launches of mega satellite constellations, but also for rapid responses during a crisis. It is also a trial by fire to see how optimized the process is in which the rockets can spend the shortest time possible at the launch points, without forming bottlenecks. What do they throw?. For this operation, four ports were mobilized: Hainan, Taiyuan, Xichang and Jiuquan. And what they have put in the space is… a little of everything: Mission 1: A Kuaizhou-1A rapid-deploy rocket launched from Jiuquan. In the cargo there were VDES satellites to identify ships and their purpose is dual: to monitor maritime traffic, but also to have an analytical capacity for data on the high seas. Mission 2: a Long March 8A rocket designed for a high rate of launches that started from Hainan. It carried 14 Guowang satellites, the state’s answer to Starlink. This is also the most strategicsince the Long March 8A is designed to compete directly against Starlink’s Falcon 9 in costs and launch rate. Mission 3: another Long March, 6A. It left Taiyuan without a confirmed payload, although it is a rocket that has previously been used to launch more Guowang satellites into orbit. Mission 4: a Long March 4B that took off from Jiuquan and is the most “military” of all. Launched Yaogan-47, a satellite recognition to “census lands and estimate crops.” It is still a remote sensing satellite, and we are in a very complex moment in the Pacific. CAS Space The fear of Starlink. One of China’s goals is to have its own Starlink system. This involves thousands of satellites orbiting and providing service, something that cannot be launched in one go. This intense four-day campaign puts on the table the logistical capacity of the Chinese space agency to be able to launch many launches in a short space of time without jeopardizing their reliability. It is a movement that will allow climb the launch of thousands of Guowang satellites into orbit and, when we talk about “fear” of Starlink, we mean that China wants to occupy the orbital space before it runs out of chairs. It is estimated that Starlink has more than 6,000 satellites circling and another 42,000 planned. China has 25,000 planned between Guowang and G60, but in space the law of “first come, first served” applies. The International Telecommunications Union assigns orbits and frequencies under this principle, so China does not want to fall behind the West. Specifically, against the United States. Sovereignty. In fact, there is an interesting “prick” with Musk’s satellites that has nothing to do with communication. Starlink has already demonstrated its usefulness in the war context (andn the war in Ukraine, for example), but also, in 2021 Tiangong space station had to maneuver twice to avoid satellites starlink. And we already know that Russia, China and the United States are preparing (and according to the United States, more than just preparing) for a war in space. In the end, it is a matter of spatial sovereignty. The United States is the proper name when we think about space, but China has been strengthening its position for decades and more recently has begun to occupy that space. And from the European Union it is alsoe is testing the ground for that spatial sovereignty. The goal of all agencies and governments is the same: not to depend on external technology. And this stress test by China when it comes to launching is a blow to its biggest rival. Image | CAS Space, Galactic Energy In Xataka | After many years trying to copy the Falcon 9, Elon Musk believes there is a company about to achieve it

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.