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
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Scientists Are Finally Making Progress Against Alzheimer's
Buck up, baby boomers. Sixty may not be the new 40, but 80 could soon be the new 60. A trove of new Alzheimer's research suggests that medicines and lifestyle changes can not only slow but prevent, even reverse, the debilitating disease. Alzheimer's is characterized by a buildup of amyloid plaque and tangles of tau proteins in the brain. They trigger inflammation, which in turn causes cognitive decline and neuron death. Scientists don't know exactly what causes this destructive cascade. The disease's complexity stymied the quest for treatments for decades, but no more. Scientists are learning quickly.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Astronauts and scientists explain why living in space is almost impossible
Billionaires make it seem that we have all the tech we need to settle on the moon and Mars. But the hard part of living in space is adapting the human body to extraterrestrial conditions. Business Insider talked to astronauts and engineers about the complexities of space habitation. Pop stars are floating in zero-G while billionaires speak of building cities in space and on Mars. This is the wild reality we live in that's supposed to help pave the way for long-term space exploration and habitation. The hardest part of living in space, however, isn't rockets and robots — it's the squishy human body. Until we can fix that or find a feasible workaround, life beyond Earth remains impossible. To understand just how much of a long shot life in space is, Business Insider spoke with astronauts, scientists, and medical professionals, and one guy who paid $30 million to join Russia's space program. Here's what they said. Only 757 people have made it to space — and even fewer have stayed for very long. One of the biggest problems of living in space or on another world is the unknown. We simply aren't certain of what it will do to the human body because no one has lived in space for longer than 14 months at a time, and only 757 people have ever entered space. What we do know, so far, is that it's not the healthiest way to live. Common side effects of long-duration stays in microgravity include muscle and bone loss, decreased blood pressure, and blurred vision. While most of these return to normal once an astronaut is back on Earth, some effects of space radiation — like an increased risk of cancer, cataracts, and damage to the central nervous system — can be permanent. In all probability, the longer a person remains in space, the worse their health becomes. Even brief trips to other worlds like a return trip to Mars, would take two to three years, and "we just don't have a large enough data sample to understand how that would impact human biology," NASA astronaut Frank Rubio, who spent a US record of 371 consecutive days on the International Space Station, told BI. He said it took him six months to return to normal after experiencing "puffy head bird legs" syndrome — astronaut slang to describe how the face puffs up and the legs grow thin as your bodily fluids react to microgravity in space. Another issue is location: There are only three feasible destinations — and all of them suck. Low Earth orbit, or "LEO," is convenient, but it's getting crowded with over 9,000 metric tons of space junk, which raises the risk of a devastating collision that could kill everyone on board an orbital craft. The moon is close but has no breathable air, hardly any atmosphere to protect against deadly space radiation, and nights there can last up to two Earth weeks. Mars has a thicker atmosphere than the moon, but it also lacks breathable air and has toxic dirt and harmful dust storms. "The single thing that differentiates the Earth from every other place in the solar system is that there is free oxygen in the atmosphere," said Mike Shara, astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History. "So we can go take a nice breath, and if you were to do that on essentially any other planet, you would die, almost instantly," he said. There may be other planets outside our solar system more similar to Earth, but they're just too far away for current technology. "We're talking decades or at least a decade to get to the outer solar system. And 1,000, 2,000, or 10,000 years to get to the nearest star. Not practical," Shara told BI. Therefore, to survive anywhere beyond Earth, we need to build protective structures to live inside, which comes with its own challenges. Many companies worldwide are exploring how to build livable complexes in space, and on the moon and Mars. Blue Origin and NASA, for example, want to 3D print structures and extract oxygen from lunar soil on the moon. Meanwhile, SpaceX plans to transform Martian air into methane fuel to power colonies and rockets for return journeys to Earth. Space engineers call this ISRU: in-situ resource utilization. However, no one has proven ISRU works at scale in real life. "These are not unsolvable problems. The reason they haven't been solved yet is because it hasn't been tried," said Miguel Gurrea, a graduate student who published a paper in 2022 for the Mars Society outlining the weak points of SpaceX's proposed mission to Mars. Some space visionaries, including Jeff Bezos, say building on another, pre-existing world isn't the best idea. We should just build our own. Some space enthusiasts, including Jeff Bezos, believe the best option isn't the moon or Mars, but a massive rotating habitat built in free space — an idea fleshed out in the '70s by particle physicist Gerard K. O'Neill. Such a structure could generate artificial gravity through centrifugal force, but it would be the most ambitious — and expensive — construction project in human history, possibly taking centuries to realize. "Dr. O'Neill's idea was maybe the moon people will do their thing, and the Mars people will do their thing. But if you want to be able to freely go back and forth to the Earth, you need to be able to grow up in a simulated gravity field," said Rick Tumlinson, space activist and former student of O'Neill. Regardless of location, there's the serious problem that once you leave Earth's shield, space becomes a human flesh barbecue. Astronauts on board the International Space Station absorb about 100x more radiation than people on Earth. Moreover, a person on a 3.5-year round trip to Mars would be exposed to the equivalent of about 16,500 chest X-rays — enough to cause cancer and other long-term health problems. And if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, a single solar flare could kill your entire crew within hours. Astronauts should prepare to burrow underground and stay there to avoid deadly radiation on the surface of the moon or Mars. The ground provides a natural barrier against radiation. Hence why many fallout shelters are underground. Similarly, astronauts on the moon or Mars should prepare to live underground like "moles or earthworms" to avoid radiation damage, said Dr. James Logan, a former NASA medical officer. Meanwhile, our spacecraft to get between worlds may need to look more like meatballs. Logan says protecting astronauts from radiation might mean ditching long, slim ship designs. Instead? Dense, spherical craft that surround the crew with as much mass as possible. For example, some proposals place the crew's living quarters in the center of a sphere of liquid water that would absorb much of the space radiation, thus protecting the crew within. Then, there's the matter of food. Even if we could build our own structures to safely live off-world, growing food to survive is another challenge entirely. Astronauts grow plants on the ISS under LED lights, but it's not enough to survive on and they rely on food they bring with them from Earth, a luxury that would likely be impossible on Mars. While the moon and Mars have soil, it's nothing like Earth's. Martian soil, for example, contains many toxic compounds. So, you can't simply grow red planet potatoes like Matt Damon. You'd have to process the soil first, likely by flushing it with precious water to wash out the toxic compounds, using energy to bake it at high temperatures, or harnessing engineered bacteria to break the toxins down — all before planting a single seed. There's also no 911 in space. In space, blood doesn't run; it pools in floating blobs. You can't use aerosol anesthetics because in microgravity, leaked gases don't rise or settle — they just linger and spread throughout the cabin. So even a small leak could circulate through the air supply and accidentally sedate or impair the entire crew. Even anesthesia delivered via spinal injection may not flow right without gravity. And on Mars, an emergency signal could take 20 minutes to reach mission control on Earth. That makes surgery in space risky and deeply under-researched. "Most of that research is happening on parabolic flights on pigs," said Kelly Weinersmith, co-author of "A City On Mars," referring to planes that dive bomb to simulate zero-G. "So the answer to when we'll understand this problem better is — when pigs fly." We once built a closed ecosystem on Earth — and it nearly fell apart. In the early 90s, Biosphere 2 tested whether humans could live in a self-contained bubble. Built in the middle of the Arizona desert, it had sun, gravity, backup air — and it still went haywire. Fast-growing microbes in the soil unexpectedly caused oxygen levels to dip and carbon dioxide levels to rise. Crops failed, and the crew split into factions. They made it the full two years inside the sealed ecosystem, but barely. And that was only eight people. Imagine thousands or millions of settlers on Mars. To be fair, NASA has run many self-contained experiments since the 90s — including its HI-SEAS and CHAPEA Mars simulation missions — that did not have the same issues as Biosphere 2. Nobody's had sex in space… we think. Despite a few rodent experiments aboard the ISS, there's never been a successful mammal pregnancy in orbit. And no humans have "done the deed" up there yet, at least not officially. Moreover, trying to start a family off-planet could be unethical because we're unsure how space radiation would affect a growing fetus. It would be as unethical as if people had tried (they didn't) experimenting with human pregnancy in Chernobyl after the nuclear meltdown "just to see what happens," said Zach Weinersmith, co-author of "A City On Mars." Meanwhile, celebrities are already floating in space, albeit very temporarily, for fun. Katy Perry, Star Trek actor William Shatner, and other ultra-wealthy passengers are already taking joyrides to space. Entrepreneur Nik Halik took a similar ride to suborbital space and spent $30 million of his own money to join Russia's space program. "I would gladly walk away, leave Earth, leave everything, and yeah, just be a colonist," said Halik, adding that his life goal is to walk on the moon or Mars. However, riding in a capsule for about 10 minutes, or becoming a backup cosmonaut, isn't the same as building a new civilization. For that, we need a lot more than flower selfies. This story was adapted from Business Insider's video series "The Limit." Watch the full video to see what it might really take to live in space. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sean Duffy's NASA Order To Put A Nuclear Reactor On The Moon Is A Lunar Land Grab
With the turmoil at NASA over severe budget cuts, it's easy to forget the space agency is trying to return astronauts to the Moon and get there before America's geopolitical rivals. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is expected to announce plans this week for NASA to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon, throwing down another gauntlet in a new space race against China and Russia. While NASA has explored powering a moon base with a reactor since 2018, the Trump administration is accelerating plans to draw a border on the lunar surface. Duffy's directive orders NASA to prepare a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor for launch by 2030, according to Politico. It might seem like an absurd prospect, but it's a necessity for a permanent human presence on the lunar on the Moon. While the International Space Station relies on solar power, it's not a viable form of electricity generation for long-term stays at humanity's most exclusive campsite. A lunar day is 28 Earth days long. There are 14 days of relentless sunshine followed by 14 days of complete darkness. Nuclear power is the most effective way to generate electricity at night, 238,900 miles from the nearest coal mine. The agency awarded three $5 million contracts back in 2022 to develop an initial design. Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse and IX were each tasked with designing a 40-kilowatt reactor with a 10-year service life that weighs less than 6.6 tons. Read more: Save Your Engine: 5 Tips For Preventing And Cleaning Carbon Buildup A Reactor Keep-Out Zone Would Essentially Be Sovereign American Territory On The Moon While the Artemis reactor development would improve nuclear power plants here on Earth and benefit the general public, Duffy's first big splash as interim NASA Administrator is a land grab. His directive mentions that the first country to put a reactor on the Moon could "declare a keep-out zone" around the miniature power station. While it makes sense to secure the area around a running nuclear reactor, there's no precedent for how large the exclusion zone should be. The United States could indirectly claim a swath of the Moon as the country's sovereign territory. Before we worry about Shackleton Crater becoming an unincorporated American territory, NASA has to get a reactor there first. The Artemis program has been plagued with delays. Artemis III, the program's first landing, is scheduled for 2027. Development delays with SpaceX's Starship, the mission's contracted lander, could push the launch back even further or scrap the landing from the mission entirely. The first habitat is stated to be planted on the lunar surface during Artemis VIII in 2033. This doesn't factor in that the White House has cancelled the Space Launch System for Artemis to shift to commercial launch partners with non-existent Moon-capable rockets. Godspeed to the lowest bidder. China And Russia Have Their Own Plans For A Lunar Nuclear Reactor While the blue corner is in shambles, NASA's opponent in the red corner is ready to pounce. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) is planning to build its own nuclear-powered moon base, with Roscosmos as a close partner. The Sino-Russian project is called the International Lunar Research Station and involves 11 other nations, a rival alliance to NASA's Artemis Accords. Their path forward is straightforward. The uncrewed Chang'e 8 mission will scout conditions for a moon base near the lunar south pole in 2029. Chang'e 8 will also be a dry run for the mission to land two taikonauts on the Moon by 2030. The International Lunar Research Station would be constructed over five further missions with launches on an annual basis. According to Deutsche Welle, CNSA and Roscosmos plan on building their base's nuclear reactor by 2035. It's safe to say that NASA astronauts would be invited over for any sleepovers at the Sino-Russian moon base. Don't Expect NASA To Get Back Together With Roscosmos Long-Term While NASA and Roscosmos have been frequent collaborators in space since Apollo-Soyuz in 1975, the partnership has been on the ropes since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The United States now threatens to sanction countries that partner with Roscosmos. Maintaining the International Space Station is the only thing that keeps the two sides on speaking terms. Both space agencies announced last week that they have agreed to extend ISS operations until 2028. In recent years, both roommates in low Earth orbit have jeopardized the ISS and the lives of everyone on board. Russia, a space-faring power in decline, has struggled to properly maintain its half of the station. NASA fears that a Russian transfer tunnel leaking pounds of air into space could fail catastrophically and rip the ISS apart. On the other hand, the American agency put the troubled Boeing Starliner in a position where it could have tumbled out of control into the station. Maybe Elon Musk plunging the ISS into the Pacific Ocean is for the best. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
