WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - Problems with Boeing's Starliner capsule, still docked at the International Space Station (ISS), have upended the original plans for its return of its two astronauts to Earth, as last-minute fixes and tests draw out a mission crucial to the future of Boeing's (BA.N), opens new tab space division. NASA has rescheduled the planned return three times, and now has no date set for it. Since its June 5 liftoff, the capsule has had five helium leaks, five maneuvering thrusters go dead and a propellant valve fail to close completely, prompting the crew in space and mission managers in Houston to spend more time than expected pursuing fixes mid-mission. Here is an explanation of potential paths forward for Starliner and its veteran NASA astronauts, Barry "Butch" Wilmore and Sunita "Suni" Williams. THE CURRENT SITUATION Starliner can stay docked at the ISS for up to 45 days, according to comments by NASA's commercial crew manager Steve Stich to reporters. But if absolutely necessary, such as if more problems arise that mission officials cannot fix in time, it could stay docked for up to 72 days, relying on various backup systems, according to a person familiar with flight planning. Internally at NASA, Starliner's latest targeted return date is July 6, according to this source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Such a return date would mean that the mission, originally planned for eight days, instead would last a month. Starliner's expendable propulsion system is part of the craft's "service module." The current problems center on this system, which is needed to back the capsule away from the ISS and position it to dive through Earth's atmosphere. Many of Starliner's thrusters have overheated when fired, and the leaks of helium - used to pressurize the thrusters - appear to be connected to how frequently they are used, according to Stich.

The world's first portable electrocardiograph was an 85-pound backpack, and now a 10-gram patch attached to your chest can transmit electrocardiograms uninterrupted for two weeks. The Apple Watch, which is worn by an estimated 100 million people, can send a text message to alert people when their heartbeat is irregular. Wearable sensors on the arms, wrists and fingers can now report arrhythmias, blood sugar levels, blood oxygen and other health indicators. Medical journals have also proposed a more ambitious vision - wearable devices can monitor patients with chronic diseases, eliminating the need for frequent hospital visits. They can spot potential health problems before a stroke or diabetes develops. The forces of health technology and wearables are converging. Tech giants like Apple (AAPL) and Alphabet's (GOOGL) Google are adding health features to their products. Medical technologists like electrocardiogram patch maker iRhythm Technologies or blood sugar monitor makers DexCom (DXCM) and Abbott Laboratories (ABT) are taking their devices beyond the clinic. "In the sensor world, people started on the consumer side and wanted to get into health care," said Kevin Sayer, chief executive of Decon Medical. "In health care, we're trying to be more consumer oriented, and I think all of those things are sort of colliding." Early bets favored the tech giants, with every health-related announcement from Apple, Google or Samsung Electronics hitting medical tech stocks. But changing doctors' practices will also require sustained investment in clinical trials. Big tech companies have cut back on investments in health care. Now it seems that medical technologists will be at the vanguard of the digital health revolution - with smartwatches and smart rings bringing them more customers who need to be diagnosed. Blake Goodner, co-founder of Bridger Management, a hedge fund focused on health care, said: "A group of medtech companies focused on digital health are maturing and reaching a scale where they can not only be profitable but also make investments to compete with larger tech companies." Tech giants aren't getting out of the health business. Apple's smartwatch has an electronic heart rate sensor that generates a single-point electrocardiogram, a wrist temperature sensor, and an accelerometer that can detect violent falls. Hundreds of millions of people are wearing smartwatches with health features from Apple or its rivals Samsung and Garmin.

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

On the evening of July 8, local time, the Israel Defense Forces issued a statement saying that Major General Avi Bluth replaced Yehuda Fox as the commander of the Israeli Central Command. Earlier that day, the Israeli army held a handover ceremony, which was presided over by the Israeli Chief of Staff Halevy. Avi Bluth joined the Israel Defense Forces in 1993 and commanded the Israeli military operations in the West Bank. In May this year, Bruce was promoted to major general and served as a military commander in the Israeli Central Command. CCTV reporters learned that in late April this year, Yehuda Fox, then commander of the Israeli Central Command, requested to resign and retire from the army in August this year. Fox had previously stated that he should bear part of the responsibility for the military intelligence failure on October 7 last year, and "must end his term like everyone else." According to the official website of the Israeli Defense Forces, the Central Command is one of the four major commands of the Israeli army, headquartered in Jerusalem, and its responsibility covers nearly one-third of Israel's territory.