Spacecraft carrying cannabis and human remains crashes into the ocean
We've sent some pretty interesting payloads to space since the first satellite (Sputnik 1) launched on October 4th, 1957. As access to space has increased, thanks largely to the commercial space industry, so too have the types of payloads we are sending.
Consider the Nyx capsule created by German aerospace startup The Exploration Company, which launched on June 23rd from the Vandenberg Space Force Base atop a Falcon-9 rocket as part of a rideshare mission (Transporter-14). The payload for this flight (dubbed "Mission Possible") included the ashes and DNA of more than 166 deceased people provided by Celestis, a Texas-based memorial spaceflight company.
While the mission achieved orbit and a controlled reentry, the capsule's landing parachutes failed to deploy before landing. This caused the Nyx capsule to crash in the Pacific Ocean on June 24th, causing all of its cargo to be lost at sea. This was the first time The Exploration Company sent customer payloads to space, equivalent to roughly 300 kg (660 lbs) of cargo. In a statement posted on LinkedIn, the company described the flight as a "partial success (partial failure)." Per their statement:
The capsule was launched successfully, powered the payloads nominally in-orbit, stabilized itself after separation with the launcher, re-entered and re-established communication after black out. But it encountered an issue afterwards, based on our current best knowledge, and we lost communication a few minutes before splashdown. We are still investigating the root causes and will share more information soon. We apologize to all our clients who entrusted us with their payloads.
We thank our teams for their hard work and their dedication to success. We have been pushing boundaries in record time and cost. This partial success reflects both ambition and the inherent risks of innovation. Leveraging the technical milestones achieved yesterday and the lessons we will extract from our ongoing investigation, we will then prepare to re-fly as soon as possible.
This is also the second time Celestis has lost a payload, the previous having taken place in 2023 when a rocket containing the cremated remains of the late NASA astronaut Philip K. Chapman exploded over New Mexico. Celestis also released a statement of condolences to the families of the people whose remains were lost:
In the coming days, our team will reach out to each family individually to offer support and discuss possible next steps. Though we currently believe that we cannot return the flight capsules, we hope families will find some peace in knowing their loved ones were part of a historic journey, launched into space, orbited Earth, and are now resting in the vastness of the Pacific, akin to a traditional and honored sea scattering.
RELATED STORIES
—SpaceX's Starship explodes on Texas launch pad in 'catastrophic failure' during routine test
—NASA spots Japan's doomed 'Resilience' moon lander from orbit — and it's surrounded by far-flung debris
—Zombie NASA satellite emits powerful radio pulse after 60 years of silence
In addition to the human remains and other payloads, Nyx also carried cannabis plant matter and seeds provided by Martian Grow, an open-source citizen science project. The purpose was to study the effects of microgravity on the germination and resilience, potentially providing insight into how life could adapt and fare in the Martian environment. The first, Mission Bikini, launched a smaller reentry capsule in July 2024 atop an Ariane 6 rocket, but the capsule remained in orbit after the rocket's upper stage failed to launch it on its reentry trajectory.
This latest mission aimed to test key technologies and verify the Nyx capsule's ability to transport cargo to space. It is hoped that future iterations of the capsule will fly spacecraft to destinations in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), including the International Space Station (ISS) and/or its successor stations. To this end, the company plans to conduct a demonstration flight to the ISS in 2028, which is pending support from the European Space Agency. In the meantime, the company plans to move forward and incorporate the lessons of this latest mission.
The original version of this article was published on Universe Today.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Citizen scientists pinpoint 10,000 eclipsing star pairs
Citizen scientists have successfully located thousands of previously unknown pairs of 'eclipsing binary' stars, NASA announced in June. The ongoing initiative helps space researchers hunt for 'eclipsing binary' stars, a rare phenomenon in which two stars orbit one another, periodically blocking each other's light. These star pairs offer important data to astrophysicists, who consider the many measurable properties of eclipsing binaries — and the information they bear about the history of star formation and destruction — as a foundation of the field.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Statistics don't support UW-Milwaukee shuttering materials engineering program
Everything is made from something. The materials we use are so important that entire eras of human history are named for them: Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age. The knowledge of how to make, process, and use these materials is fundamental to any form of society. A society that fails to pass this knowledge on to new generations will not survive or prosper. That's why it was disappointing to hear outgoing UWM Chancellor Mark Mone double down on the proposed closure of UWM's award-winning Materials Engineering program. This program provides students with life-changing opportunities for high-paying careers in an in-demand field. It's also critical for our region's manufacturing industry and national defense. Mone pointed to the relatively small size of the Materials Engineering program. He would be hard-pressed to find a school of engineering anywhere in the country in which materials engineering is not the smallest department in terms of number of students. Materials engineering programs typically have dozens of students, not hundreds. To put this into perspective, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts an average of just 10 job openings per year for neurologists in Wisconsin. Hopefully, no one would suggest that UW-Madison should stop training neurology residents, since most of us recognize that medical specialists are essential to the kind of society we want to have. Materials engineers are no less essential, but since we work behind the scenes, many people are unaware of the critical role we play. In fact, our work goes into every single manufactured item you see around you, from nuts and bolts to airplanes, and everything in between. Letters: Lack of state support, Republicans are to blame for UWM's budget constraints Chancellor Mone suggested redirecting resources towards UWM's Computer Science program. However, unemployment among computer science graduates is currently 6.1% — nearly 1.5 times the overall national average. While computer science is undoubtedly an important field, increasing the present oversupply of computer science graduates will not benefit students or Wisconsin's economy. Materials engineering graduates, in contrast, have an unemployment rate of just 1.85%, and Wisconsin manufacturers are struggling to fill materials engineering positions as the current generation retires. This critical shortage is why the Department of Defense created the METAL (Metallurgical Engineering Trades Apprenticeship & Learning) program, an initiative focused on rebuilding the materials engineering workforce. Given Wisconsin's position as the number one state for metal casting employment, the Defense Department has identified Milwaukee as a target location for a new $1.5 million METAL hub. Opinion: We asked readers about wake boats on Wisconsin lakes. Here's what you said. Funding from this initiative could be a tremendous catalyst to strengthen and grow UWM's Materials Engineering program. This would be a rare win-win-win-win situation: for UWM, for students, for industry, and for national defense. In order to qualify for this funding, however, UWM needs to continue to have a Materials Engineering program. UWM's incoming chancellor, Thomas Gibson, successfully worked with industry in his previous role to ensure UW-Stevens Point's offerings were aligned with workforce needs. Let's hope he brings that perspective to his new role at UWM. Outgoing Chancellor Mone has handed him an awesome opportunity to show that he is a different kind of leader who will take UWM in a new direction. By saving the UWM Materials Engineering program, the new chancellor has a chance to create a tremendous success story that will benefit our region for generations to come. Dave Palmer is a metallurgical engineer at Twin Disc in Racine. He earned his masters degree in Materials Engineering from UWM in 2014, and is currently working on a PhD in Materials Engineering at UWM. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: UWM materials engineering program must be saved from closure | Opinion
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Do You Really Learn When You Use AI? What MIT Researchers Found
Your brain works differently when you're using generative AI for a task than when you use your brain alone. Namely, you're less likely to remember what you did. That's the somewhat obvious-sounding conclusion of an MIT study that looked at how people think when they write an essay -- one of the earliest scientific studies of how using gen AI affects us. The study, a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, is pretty small (54 participants) and preliminary, but it points toward the need for more research into how using tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT is affecting how our brains function. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the research (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET's parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) The findings show a significant difference in what happens in your brain and with your memory when you complete a task using an AI tool rather than when you do it with just your brain. But don't read too much into those differences -- this is just a glimpse at brain activity in the moment, not long-term evidence of changes in how your brain operates all the time, researchers said. "We want to try to give some first steps in this direction and also encourage others to ask the question," Nataliya Kosmyna, a research scientist at MIT and the lead author of the study, told me. The growth of AI tools like chatbots is quickly changing how we work, search for information and write. All of this has happened so fast that it's easy to forget that ChatGPT first emerged as a popular tool just a few years ago, at the end of 2022. That means we're just now beginning to see research on how AI use is affecting us. Here's a look at what the MIT study found about what happened in the brains of ChatGPT users, and what future studies might tell us. Now Playing: Testing OpenAI's New ChatGPT Search Engine 06:01 This is your brain on ChatGPT The MIT researchers split their 54 research participants into three groups and asked them to write essays during separate sessions over several weeks. One group was given access to ChatGPT, another was allowed to use a standard search engine (Google), and the third had none of those tools, just their own brains. The researchers analyzed the texts they produced, interviewed the subjects immediately after they wrote the essays, and recorded the participants' brain activity using electroencephalography, or EEG. An analysis of the language used in the essays found that those in the "brain-only" group wrote in more distinct ways, while those who used large language models produced fairly similar essays. More interesting findings came from the interviews after the essays were written. Those who used their brains alone showed better recall and were better able to quote from their writing than those who used search engines or LLMs. It might be unsurprising that those who relied more heavily on LLMs, who may have copied and pasted from the chatbot's responses, would be less able to quote what they had "written." Kosmyna said these interviews were done immediately after the writing happened, and the lack of recall is notable. "You wrote it, didn't you?" she said. "Aren't you supposed to know what it was?" The EEG results also showed significant differences between the three groups. There was more neural connectivity -- interaction between the components of the brain -- among the brain-only participants than in the search engine group, and the LLM group had the least activity. Again, not an entirely surprising conclusion. Using tools means you use less of your brain to complete a task. But Kosmyna said the research helped show what the differences were: "The idea was to look closer to understand that it's different, but how is it different?" she said. Nataliya Kosmyna shares a picture of a research subject writing an essay while an EEG monitors the brain activity. The Washington Post/Contributor/Getty Images The LLM group showed "weaker memory traces, reduced self-monitoring and fragmented authorship," the study authors wrote. That can be a concern in a learning environment: "If users rely heavily on AI tools, they may achieve superficial fluency but fail to internalize the knowledge or feel a sense of ownership over it." After the first three essays, the researchers invited participants back for a fourth session in which they were assigned to a different group. The findings there, from a significantly smaller group of subjects (just 18), found that those who were in the brain-only group at first showed more activity even when using an LLM, while those in the LLM-only group showed less neural connectivity without the LLM than the initial brain-only group had. This isn't 'brainrot' When the MIT study was released, many headlines claimed it showed ChatGPT use was "rotting" brains or causing significant long-term problems. That's not exactly what the researchers found, Kosmyna said. The study focused on the brain activity that happened while the participants were working -- their brain's internal circuitry in the moment. It also examined their memory of their work in that moment. Understanding the long-term effects of AI use would require a longer-term study and different methods. Kosmyna said future research could look at other gen AI use cases, like coding, or use technology that examines different parts of the brain, like functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI. "The whole idea is to encourage more experiments, more scientific data collection," she said. While the use of LLMs is still being researched, it's also likely that the effect on our brains isn't as significant as you might think, said Genevieve Stein-O'Brien, assistant professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in the MIT study. She studies how genetics and biology help develop and build the brain -- which occurs early in life. Those critical periods tend to close during childhood or adolescence, she said. "All of this happens way before you ever interact with ChatGPT or anything like that," Stein-O'Brien told me. "There is a lot of infrastructure that is set up, and that is very robust." The situation might be different in children, who are increasingly coming into contact with AI technology, although the study of children raises ethical concerns for scientists wanting to research human behavior, Stein-O'Brien said. You can have a chatbot help you write an essay, but will you remember what you write? ThaiWhy care about essay writing anyway? The idea of studying the effect of AI use on essay writing might sound pointless to some. After all, wasn't the point of writing an essay in school to get a grade? Why not outsource that work to a machine that can do it, if not better, then more easily? The MIT study gets to the point of the task: Writing an essay is about developing your thinking, about understanding the world around you. "We start out with what we know when we begin writing, but in the act of writing, we end up framing the next questions and thinking about new ideas or new content to explore," said Robert Cummings, a professor of writing and rhetoric at the University of Mississippi. Cummings has done similar research on the way computer technologies affect how we write. One study involved sentence completion technology -- what you might know informally as autocomplete. He took 119 writers and tasked them with writing an essay. Roughly half had computers with Google Smart Compose enabled, while the rest didn't. Did it make writers faster, or did they spend more time and write less because they had to navigate the choices proposed? The result was that they wrote about the same amount in the same time period. "They weren't writing in different sentence lengths, with different levels of complexity of ideas," he told me. "It was straight-up equal." Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts ChatGPT and its ilk are a different beast. With a sentence completion technology, you still have control over the words, you still have to make writing choices. In the MIT study, some participants just copied and pasted what ChatGPT said. They might not have even read the work they turned in as their own. "My personal opinion is that when students are using generative AI to replace their writing, they're kind of surrendering, they're not actively engaged in their project any longer," Cummings said. The MIT researchers found something interesting in that fourth session, when they noticed that the group who had written three essays without tools had higher levels of engagement when finally given tools. "Taken together, these findings support an educational model that delays AI integration until learners have engaged in sufficient self-driven cognitive effort," they wrote. "Such an approach may promote both immediate tool efficacy and lasting cognitive autonomy." Cummings said he has started teaching his composition class with no devices. Students write by hand in class, generally on topics that are more personal and would be harder to feed into an LLM. He said he doesn't feel like he's grading papers written by AI, that his students are getting a chance to engage with their own ideas before seeking help from a tool. "I'm not going back," he said.
