Mysuru school students to connect with astronaut shukla today
This is a rare and prestigious opportunity that allows students to establish direct communication with the ISS using amateur radio frequencies and will take place through the Amateur Radio on the International Space Station (ARISS) initiative in coordination with the UR Rao Satellite Centre (URSC), Bengaluru.
The contact will be made using amateur radio transceivers configured to uplink and downlink signals through the ARISS ground station infrastructure, allowing students to engage in Q&A from Earth to space, via RF transmissions. The interaction will occur as part of a global network of scheduled ARISS school contacts that introduce young learners to space science, communications technology, and orbital research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
ISRO honour for JU lunar rover
1 2 3 4 5 6 Kolkata: A 10-member Jadavpur University (JU) team, Obseract, has competed with over a 1,000 teams to rank 5th in the ISRO Robotics Challenge-2024 for designing and operating an autonomous robotic vehicle (rover) that can traverse tough terrains like the lunar surface and execute diverse tasks within a simulated extraterrestrial setting. The team, comprising students, researchers and their mentors, received the trophy on July 25 at the U R Rao Satellite Centre, Bengaluru. The contest assigned robotic tasks inspired by Chandrayaan-4 problem statements. Out of 1,008 team, 273 proposals qualified. Obseract was among the 10 teams selected to attend the final challenge round in Bengaluru in 2023. The results were declared in Aug 2024. The team is now preparing for NIDAR 2025 and International Robotics Challenge 2026. The 42kg 6-wheeled rover is worth about Rs 2.7lakh. Its arm is capable of picking up 200gm samples. It can rotate 360° rotation around a single point without taking much space. The rover has a runtime of 9 hours on simple terrain and 4 hours during heavy use of its manipulator arm. Alumni of the1984 batch of the mechanical engineering department, besides others funded the project.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Chemotherapy vs. Immunotherapy: Comparing effectiveness, side effects, and cancer treatment outcomes
Maintaining clear knowledge about cancer treatments is crucial for both patients and caregivers. Two of the most widely used approaches today are chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While both aim to control and eliminate cancer, they do so through fundamentally different mechanisms. Chemotherapy, in use for several decades, targets rapidly dividing cells—both cancerous and healthy—whereas immunotherapy represents a more recent breakthrough that harnesses the body's immune system to attack tumours naturally. This article explains how each treatment works, when they are used, their side effects, costs, and how they sometimes work together. The goal is to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date overview without any opinions—just clear facts based on current medical understanding. How chemotherapy works and when it is used in cancer treatment According to the Cancer Research Institute , chemotherapy uses drugs to kill cells that multiply quickly. This includes cancer cells but also healthy cells such as those in hair follicles, the gastrointestinal tract, and bone marrow. It relies on a cytotoxic effect that interferes with cell division or metabolism. Chemotherapy has historically been a first-line treatment for many cancers, including breast, lung, blood cancers, and others. Chemotherapy is administered in cycles over weeks or months, depending on the type and stage of cancer. It works systemically, meaning it can reach cancer cells throughout the body, making it useful for metastatic disease. For example, lung cancer and lymphoma are frequently treated with chemotherapy either alone or in combination with other therapies. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now What is immunotherapy and where it fits in for cancer treatment Immunotherapy does not directly attack cancer cells. Instead, it helps the immune system recognise and destroy tumours. Several forms are available today: Checkpoint inhibitors, which block proteins like PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4, allow T-cells to attack tumours. CAR T‑cell therapy, including genetically modified T-cells tailored to recognise specific tumour antigens. Cancer vaccines are designed to stimulate an immune response against tumour-specific proteins. Cytokine therapy uses signalling molecules like interleukins to boost immune function. Oncolytic virus therapy, engineered viruses that kill cancer cells and trigger immunity. As per Cancer Research Institute , Immunotherapy is often used for cancers known to respond well, such as melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, certain lymphomas, and gastrointestinal tumours. It can be applied in advanced or metastatic stages or, increasingly, earlier in treatment plans. Recent regulatory approvals cover multiple cancers based on biomarkers like PD-L1 expression and microsatellite instability. Chemotherapy vs. Immunotherapy : Key differences in mechanism and effectiveness The main distinction lies in how the treatments target cancer: Chemotherapy directly attacks dividing cells, regardless of whether they are malignant or not. This leads to quick tumour shrinkage but also affects healthy tissues. Immunotherapy engages the immune system to fight cancer more selectively. It may take longer to produce measurable results, but in some cases, it provides durable remission. Effectiveness depends on tumour type, stage, and biomarker presence. For example, checkpoint inhibitors have shown significant long-term survival benefits in melanoma and lung cancer. However, immunotherapy is not universally effective: tumours lacking specific markers, or with low immune infiltration, may respond poorly. Combining Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy: Synergistic benefits Recent research shows that using both treatments together—known as chemoimmunotherapy—can improve outcomes for several hard-to-treat cancers. Chemotherapy may expose tumour antigens and modify the tumour microenvironment, making it easier for immune cells to act. Meanwhile, immunotherapy continues the attack. The combination is FDA-approved for cancers such as certain lung, head and neck, gastrointestinal cancers, and triple-negative breast cancer. Patients often experience better response rates and reduced drug resistance compared to using either therapy alone. Side effect profiles of immunotherapy and chemotherapy: What patients should expect Because of their different mechanisms, these treatments produce distinct side effects: Chemotherapy can cause hair loss, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, anaemia, immune suppression, mouth sores, nerve damage, and weight changes. These are often intense but may resolve after treatment ends. Immunotherapy may result in overactivation of the immune system, leading to inflammation in organs such as the lungs (pneumonitis), liver (hepatitis), colon (colitis), as well as flu-like symptoms, fatigue, skin reactions, or hormonal imbalance if endocrine glands are affected. Long-term monitoring is needed. Response time and duration of treatment Chemotherapy typically involves multiple treatment cycles and shows rapid effects, with measurable tumour reduction after a few weeks. Immunotherapy, particularly in advanced cancers, may have a delayed onset but can provide sustained responses extending for months or years. Maintenance treatment may also continue as immune surveillance. Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy costs and accessibility Treatment costs vary greatly. Chemotherapy is generally less expensive, especially in resource-limited settings. In India, a full course may range between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2,00,000 per cycle. Immunotherapy, being more complex and newer, is costlier—often Rs 2,50,000 to Rs 5,00,000 per cycle in such locations. Financial assistance or insurance coverage may be available. Effectiveness based on cancer type The success of each treatment depends significantly on cancer type: Immunotherapy shows outstanding results in MSI‑High colorectal cancer, with significantly better survival compared to chemotherapy. Studies show up to a 43% reduction in mortality risk in MSI‑High patients using immunotherapy. However, effectiveness in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer remains modest. Pembrolizumab, a checkpoint inhibitor, led to complete responses in 59% of certain stage 2 or 3 bowel cancer patients before surgery, versus less than 5% using traditional chemotherapy. Patients with early-stage lung cancer treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy have seen survival improvements of nearly four months on average, compared to chemotherapy alone. Chemotherapy vs. Immunotherapy: Side-by-side comparison Feature Chemotherapy Immunotherapy Mechanism Direct cell-killing, non-selective Immune system activation, tumour-specific Onset of action Rapid tumour shrinkage Slower response, potentially long-lasting Side effects Hair loss, nausea, and immune suppression Immune-related inflammation, fatigue, skin issues Duration Fixed cycles over weeks/months Fewer treatments over months or years Cost Relatively lower Significantly higher per cycle Effective cancers Many solid and blood cancers Melanoma, lung, bladder, MSI-H colorectal, lymphoma Understanding the differences between immunotherapy and chemotherapy is important for treatment planning. Chemotherapy remains a fast and reliable option in many cancers, while immunotherapy offers a new era of personalised treatment with potentially lasting benefits. In some cases, combining both leads to the best outcomes. Each therapy comes with its risks, costs, and suitability profile. Ultimately, treatment decisions should be made by oncologists in consultation with patients, based on cancer type, biomarkers, overall health status, and patient preferences.
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
NASA and Congress Wrestle Over the Space Station—and How to Replace It
The fight over government spending is reaching 250 miles above the Earth's surface. The International Space Station for more than two decades has been the centerpiece of human spaceflight at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Government leaders are now jousting over funding for the ISS, while NASA is signaling it will start pulling back on some station activities ahead of its planned decommissioning in 2030, when private space stations are envisioned taking its place. Last month, NASA directed Boeing to cut back on station-related services that the aerospace giant manages under a longstanding contract, according to a letter viewed by The Wall Street Journal. Officials at the agency are studying sending smaller crews to the ISS instead of the typical four, translating to less onboard research. Sean Duffy, NASA's acting administrator, on Monday laid out a plan that would provide agency support for a wider range of private stations under development. In a memo viewed by the Journal, Duffy said the approach would give NASA and station developers more flexibility. 'It is important to move quickly,' he said in the memo. The order was one of Duffy's first moves since President Trump appointed him to run NASA on a temporary basis in July, a role he is handling in addition to leading the Transportation Department. NASA is famed for sending astronauts to the moon, but the space station has been the focal point of its high-profile human missions in recent decades. NASA and international crews have continuously manned the facility for almost 25 years, the agency has said, pursuing science and studying how humans can live in orbit. The ISS—managed by the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada—is also showing its age. Leaks in part of the station operated by Russia keep occurring. Earlier this year, the White House proposed cutting funding for the ISS, saying in a budget pitch that NASA should focus efforts there on 'very limited' research that is essential to exploration of the moon and Mars. Many members of Congress have pushed back. The ISS received money in the Republicans' landmark tax-and-budget bill, and a recent Senate legislative report said NASA should 'maintain the fullest possible use of ISS through end of life.' U.S. government leaders want to avoid any gap between the ISS and future private facilities—in large part because China has its own station, called Tiangong, now flying. 'We must put the necessary systems in place to support and command American astronauts continually in low Earth orbit,' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), chairman of the Commerce Committee, during a hearing in April. 'We cannot surrender low Earth orbit to the Chinese or to the Russians.' U.S. companies aiming to build private facilities in low-Earth orbit include Voyager Technologies, Axiom Space, Vast and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. SpaceX has considered using part of its Starship vehicle as an orbital station as well. Several companies have received NASA funding to help develop commercial stations that could replace the ISS, and the agency has struck unfunded agreements with other firms working on station efforts. Building and deploying a new facility could cost around $3 billion or more, according to station developers. Many executives have expected NASA this year to begin picking one or more station developers to receive bigger contracts, narrowing the field of developers. The directive from Duffy moves away from that approach, instructing staff to instead continue supporting a range of station development work. Duffy on Monday also issued a separate memo calling for NASA to accelerate work to develop nuclear power facilities on the moon and Mars. Politico reported earlier on his memos. Write to Micah Maidenberg at
