THEME BY PISTACHI-O
thenewenlightenmentage:

Incredible Technology: How Fleets of ‘Flat Landers’ Could Explore Other Planets
Future space missions may send dozens of rug-like robots fluttering down to the surface of alien worlds, taking much of the risk out of planetary exploration.
Researchers are developing flat, blanket-size landers that could be delivered en masse to worlds such as Mars or the Jupiter moon Europa. The approach represents a radical departure from the surface-exploration status quo, which generally launches single-shot, big-ticket landers or rovers that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design and build.
Continue Reading

thenewenlightenmentage:

Incredible Technology: How Fleets of ‘Flat Landers’ Could Explore Other Planets

Future space missions may send dozens of rug-like robots fluttering down to the surface of alien worlds, taking much of the risk out of planetary exploration.

Researchers are developing flat, blanket-size landers that could be delivered en masse to worlds such as Mars or the Jupiter moon Europa. The approach represents a radical departure from the surface-exploration status quo, which generally launches single-shot, big-ticket landers or rovers that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design and build.

Continue Reading

galaxyclusters:

jtotheizzoe:

Carl Sagan guided the maiden voyage of Cosmos a generation ago. He was the most successful science communicator of the 20th century, but he was first and foremost a scientist. Carl contributed enormously to our knowledge of the planets. He correctly predicted the existence of methane lakes on Saturn’s giant moon Titan. He showed that the atmosphere of the early Earth must have contained powerful greenhouse gasses. He was the first to understand that seasonal changes on Mars were due to wind-blown dust. Carl was a pioneer in the search for extraterrestrial life and intelligence. He played a leading role in every major spacecraft mission to explore the solar system during the first 40 years of the space age.

Raise your hand if you think the best part of the new Cosmos were the amazing shots of Carl Sagan’s life and work.

Raises hand.

I love you Neil, but so many Carl feels.

*frantically waving arms*

laboratoryequipment:

Turing Proven Correct 60 Years After DeathAlan Turing’s accomplishments in computer science are well known, but lesser known is his impact on biology and chemistry. In his only published paper on biology, Turing proposed a theory of morphogenesis, the process by which identical cells differentiate, for example, into an organism with arms and legs, a head and tail.Now, 60 years after Turing’s death, researchers from Brandeis Univ. and the Univ. of Pittsburgh have provided the first experimental evidence that validates Turing’s theory in cell-like structures.Read more: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/03/turing-proven-correct-60-years-after-death

laboratoryequipment:

Turing Proven Correct 60 Years After Death

Alan Turing’s accomplishments in computer science are well known, but lesser known is his impact on biology and chemistry. In his only published paper on biology, Turing proposed a theory of morphogenesis, the process by which identical cells differentiate, for example, into an organism with arms and legs, a head and tail.

Now, 60 years after Turing’s death, researchers from Brandeis Univ. and the Univ. of Pittsburgh have provided the first experimental evidence that validates Turing’s theory in cell-like structures.

Read more: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/03/turing-proven-correct-60-years-after-death

sci-universe:

Astrophotography from 1908 — 1919

I can’t even describe how much respect I have for early astronomers.

Image courtesy: Yerkes Observatory, Royal Observatory of Greenwich, Mount Wilson Observatory

thedemon-hauntedworld:

M65 and M66 Nearby and bright, spiral galaxies M65 (top) and M66 stand out in this engaging cosmic snapshot. The pair are just 35 million light-years distant and around 100,000 light-years across, about the size of our own spiral Milky Way. While both exhibit prominent dust lanes sweeping along their broad spiral arms, M66 in particular is a striking contrast in red and blue hues; the telltale pinkish glow of hydrogen gas in star forming regions and young blue star clusters. M65 and M66 make up two thirds of the well-known Leo Triplet of galaxies with warps and tidal tails that offer evidence of the group’s past close encounters. The larger M66 has been host to four supernovae discovered since 1973.
Image Credit & Copyright: Bill Snyder (Heavens Mirror Observatory)

thedemon-hauntedworld:

M65 and M66
Nearby and bright, spiral galaxies M65 (top) and M66 stand out in this engaging cosmic snapshot. The pair are just 35 million light-years distant and around 100,000 light-years across, about the size of our own spiral Milky Way. While both exhibit prominent dust lanes sweeping along their broad spiral arms, M66 in particular is a striking contrast in red and blue hues; the telltale pinkish glow of hydrogen gas in star forming regions and young blue star clusters. M65 and M66 make up two thirds of the well-known Leo Triplet of galaxies with warps and tidal tails that offer evidence of the group’s past close encounters. The larger M66 has been host to four supernovae discovered since 1973.

Image Credit & Copyright: Bill Snyder (Heavens Mirror Observatory)

kenobi-wan-obi:

Where’s Planet X? NASA Space Telescope Discovers Thousands of New Stars, But No ‘Nemesis’


  A NASA spacecraft has pounded another nail into the coffin of the hypothetical solar system body known as “Planet X” or “Nemesis.”
  
  After scanning the entire sky, the space agency’s Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) found no signs of an undiscovered planet or other large body in the outer reaches of the solar system. The probe did, however, find several thousand new objects much farther out.
  
  "The outer solar system probably does not contain a large gas planet, or a small, companion star," Kevin Luhman of Penn State University said in a statement. Luhman is the author of one of two new papers appearing in the Astrophysical Journal that describe the results of WISE’s search.
  
  'Hiding in plain sight'
  
  WISE scanned the sky throughout 2010 and in early 2011, with a six-month gap between the two observations. By comparing the two sets of infrared images, astronomers could identify objects that had moved slightly across the sky. WISE imaged nearly 750 million stars, asteroids, and galaxies, some of which had never been spotted before.
  
  Luhman’s study found 762 new objects among the data, but no signs of a Saturn-sized object out to 10,000 times the Earth-sun distance (an astronomical unit, or AU; 1 AU is about 93 million miles, or 150 million kilometers). Nor did Luhman spot any Jupiter-size or larger objects out to 26,000 AUs.
  
  A second study, led by Davy Kirkpatrick of NASA’s Infrared and Processing Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology, discovered 3,525 new stars and brown dwarfs, some of which overlapped Luhman’s finds. Brown dwarfs are objects that are larger than planets but too small to sustain fusion in their core as true stars do. As a result, they are far dimmer and more challenging to observe.
  
  "We’re finding objects that were totally overlooked before," Kirkpatrick said in a statement.
  
  Some of these include extremely close stars, such as one located only 20 light-years away in the constellation Norma. A study that looked at WISE data last year found a pair of brown dwarfs just 6.5 light-years from Earth, making it the closest star system discovered in almost 100 years.
  
  "Neighboring star systems that have been hiding in plain sight just jump out in the WISE data," mission principal investigator Ned Wright of UCLA said in a statement.

kenobi-wan-obi:

Where’s Planet X? NASA Space Telescope Discovers Thousands of New Stars, But No ‘Nemesis’

A NASA spacecraft has pounded another nail into the coffin of the hypothetical solar system body known as “Planet X” or “Nemesis.”

After scanning the entire sky, the space agency’s Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) found no signs of an undiscovered planet or other large body in the outer reaches of the solar system. The probe did, however, find several thousand new objects much farther out.

"The outer solar system probably does not contain a large gas planet, or a small, companion star," Kevin Luhman of Penn State University said in a statement. Luhman is the author of one of two new papers appearing in the Astrophysical Journal that describe the results of WISE’s search.

'Hiding in plain sight'

WISE scanned the sky throughout 2010 and in early 2011, with a six-month gap between the two observations. By comparing the two sets of infrared images, astronomers could identify objects that had moved slightly across the sky. WISE imaged nearly 750 million stars, asteroids, and galaxies, some of which had never been spotted before.

Luhman’s study found 762 new objects among the data, but no signs of a Saturn-sized object out to 10,000 times the Earth-sun distance (an astronomical unit, or AU; 1 AU is about 93 million miles, or 150 million kilometers). Nor did Luhman spot any Jupiter-size or larger objects out to 26,000 AUs.

A second study, led by Davy Kirkpatrick of NASA’s Infrared and Processing Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology, discovered 3,525 new stars and brown dwarfs, some of which overlapped Luhman’s finds. Brown dwarfs are objects that are larger than planets but too small to sustain fusion in their core as true stars do. As a result, they are far dimmer and more challenging to observe.

"We’re finding objects that were totally overlooked before," Kirkpatrick said in a statement.

Some of these include extremely close stars, such as one located only 20 light-years away in the constellation Norma. A study that looked at WISE data last year found a pair of brown dwarfs just 6.5 light-years from Earth, making it the closest star system discovered in almost 100 years.

"Neighboring star systems that have been hiding in plain sight just jump out in the WISE data," mission principal investigator Ned Wright of UCLA said in a statement.

Guys, go look at the robot my team built! (It's Star Trek temed!) 

any of you guys play World of Warcraft?

26px:

i said the word “queer” in art class and a girl screamed because the head of the gay club said it was a bad word

the head of the gay club is straight

i am queer

goodbye


This wide-field view captures the evocative and colourful star formation region of the Seagull Nebula, IC 2177, on the borders of the constellations of Monoceros (The Unicorn) and Canis Major (The Great Dog). This view was created from images forming part of the Digitized Sky Survey 2.
Credit:
ESO/Digitized Sky Survey 2. Acknowledgement: Davide De Martin

This wide-field view captures the evocative and colourful star formation region of the Seagull Nebula, IC 2177, on the borders of the constellations of Monoceros (The Unicorn) and Canis Major (The Great Dog). This view was created from images forming part of the Digitized Sky Survey 2.

Credit:

ESO/Digitized Sky Survey 2. Acknowledgement: Davide De Martin

we-are-star-stuff:

What if You Were Born in Space?
Did you know that there has been an ‘uninterrupted’ human presence in space ever since November of 2001? That is rather awesome when you think about it, but all of the people who have spent time in space were born and grew up on Earth.
Okay, technically we were all born in space. But what would things be like for a person who was conceived and born in outer space?
NASA funds research programs devoted to studying a variety of aspects of living in space including the possibility of growing plants to the physical effects on the human body in a zero-gravity environment. These experiments are still in their very early stages since space travel itself is relatively new.
A woman has yet to give birth on a shuttle or in the Space Station nor has a pregnant woman even traveled in space. However, a few studies have sent pregnant rats into space so the development of the (Earth-born) babies could be investigated.
More recently in 2001 biologists Jeffrey Alberts of Indiana University and April Ronca of the NASA Ames Research Center sent 20 pregnant rats into space to determine some of the effects the zero-gravity environment had on the fetuses. The rats were sent in the middle of their pregnancies when the vestibular systems were beginning to develop in the fetuses. (The vestibular system in humans is a network of channels and sacs of fluid in the inner ear that regulates balance.) The mothers gave birth to normal-sized babies and were able to lactate and care for them normally. Even after the muscle mass lost due to the lack of gravity the labor contractions did not pose a problem for the mothers. There were noticeable effects on the vestibular systems of the space-based rat infants, however. The Earth-based babies were able to immediately right themselves upon being turned on their backs in water. The space-based babies had more trouble; some had to make a few attempts before achieving success and others were unable to do it at all. After five days of the same test though all the babies were able to roll over. The researchers also determined that the vestibular organs detecting angular changes were actually more advanced in the space-based babies, probably because their mothers were forced to roll around a lot on the shuttle due to the lack of gravity.
Sex is very difficult in zero gravity, apparently, because you have no traction and you keep bumping against the walls. Think about it: you have no friction, you have no resistance. But the lack of gravity is not the only issue making space births difficult. The effects on a developing fetus would likely be severe, perhaps disrupting normal embryonic development and even neurological functioning. A baby’s body and bones may develop differently in weightlessness.
If a pregnant woman flies in space and gives birth almost right away, the baby will be born pretty normal because it will develop in the womb very normally at Earth’s gravity. What happens then is very interesting.
The bone cells are programmed to grow; they don’t stop until you are a teenager or so. But it is gravity as a stress that makes the cells in the bones have the right alignment, or stack up properly and pull the bone so that it forms straight. Without gravity, the baby’s bones won’t get long and thin like adult bone. They will be very easy to break, and they won’t grow as fast. This is true for arms and legs.
The bones at the top of the baby’s head will actually grow thicker and stronger than on Earth. This is because your heart does not have to work so hard to move blood and other fluid from your feet to your upper body because there is no gravity. What happens is that the heart still pulls on the fluid in the legs, which now comes out much more easily. This causes the upper body to have more fluid and more pressure, which causes stress. Stress is always what makes bone grow and change. So, more pressure, more growth in the skull.
The bones in the hands will probably be normal because the baby/child/adult will use his hands just like on Earth. The feet will probably not grow much because they don’t get the stress from having the weight of your whole body on them. Ribs are interesting. Ribs protect your lungs and give support to your body so they don’t collapse. They would probably be okay, but develop thinner than on Earth, so they wouldn’t be nearly as strong. The spine is really going to be affected. The gravity won’t push/pull down on you, so the vertebrae won’t feel the stress, and they won’t grow. But they will get stress from the spinal cord as it grows and pushes out. You would probably end up with thinner, very easily crushed vertebrae.
Muscles work the same way. They need stress to grow and develop. Gravity is a stress force that pulls in one direction causing the muscle to develop in the right shape. So, if it is a muscle that won’t be used much (say, the muscles that move your feet), they won’t grow nearly as strong. Some muscles will be almost the same, such as your hand muscles. Other muscles, like your heart, will be different. Your heart won’t have to work as hard because there is no gravity to make blood circulation difficult. This takes a while to happen though. With a baby just born, probably the heart will never develop nearly as strong as a baby on Earth will.
Muscles and bones work together. The muscles are attached to bone, and they are very tightly connected. If you exercise a muscle, it pulls on the bone and causes a pulling stress. This helps the bone grow stronger in that area. This is why kids are told to play around outside when they are young - their bones grow very fast and if the child does a lot of exercise, the muscles get strong, making the bone very strong.
So, a baby born in space is going to have pretty strange and weak bones in most parts of their body. This shouldn’t affect them too much if they spend their whole life in space, but they will be in a lot of trouble if they come back to Earth. Their leg and feet bones will be too weak to hold them, the spine will probably crush under its own weight. The heart muscle will not be strong enough to pump blood around the whole body because of gravity pulling the blood down, and leg muscles will be too weak for you to stand. Basically, your bones and muscles will be much too heavy to support, and you will fall down in a big heap and die.
But if you are a baby born in space and someone drops you on your head when you return to Earth, your skull will be nice and thick.
[sources: x x x] For more info check this video.

we-are-star-stuff:

What if You Were Born in Space?

Did you know that there has been an ‘uninterrupted’ human presence in space ever since November of 2001? That is rather awesome when you think about it, but all of the people who have spent time in space were born and grew up on Earth.

Okay, technically we were all born in space. But what would things be like for a person who was conceived and born in outer space?

NASA funds research programs devoted to studying a variety of aspects of living in space including the possibility of growing plants to the physical effects on the human body in a zero-gravity environment. These experiments are still in their very early stages since space travel itself is relatively new.

A woman has yet to give birth on a shuttle or in the Space Station nor has a pregnant woman even traveled in space. However, a few studies have sent pregnant rats into space so the development of the (Earth-born) babies could be investigated.

More recently in 2001 biologists Jeffrey Alberts of Indiana University and April Ronca of the NASA Ames Research Center sent 20 pregnant rats into space to determine some of the effects the zero-gravity environment had on the fetuses. The rats were sent in the middle of their pregnancies when the vestibular systems were beginning to develop in the fetuses. (The vestibular system in humans is a network of channels and sacs of fluid in the inner ear that regulates balance.) The mothers gave birth to normal-sized babies and were able to lactate and care for them normally. Even after the muscle mass lost due to the lack of gravity the labor contractions did not pose a problem for the mothers. There were noticeable effects on the vestibular systems of the space-based rat infants, however. The Earth-based babies were able to immediately right themselves upon being turned on their backs in water. The space-based babies had more trouble; some had to make a few attempts before achieving success and others were unable to do it at all. After five days of the same test though all the babies were able to roll over. The researchers also determined that the vestibular organs detecting angular changes were actually more advanced in the space-based babies, probably because their mothers were forced to roll around a lot on the shuttle due to the lack of gravity.

Sex is very difficult in zero gravity, apparently, because you have no traction and you keep bumping against the walls. Think about it: you have no friction, you have no resistance. But the lack of gravity is not the only issue making space births difficult. The effects on a developing fetus would likely be severe, perhaps disrupting normal embryonic development and even neurological functioning. A baby’s body and bones may develop differently in weightlessness.

If a pregnant woman flies in space and gives birth almost right away, the baby will be born pretty normal because it will develop in the womb very normally at Earth’s gravity. What happens then is very interesting.

The bone cells are programmed to grow; they don’t stop until you are a teenager or so. But it is gravity as a stress that makes the cells in the bones have the right alignment, or stack up properly and pull the bone so that it forms straight. Without gravity, the baby’s bones won’t get long and thin like adult bone. They will be very easy to break, and they won’t grow as fast. This is true for arms and legs.

The bones at the top of the baby’s head will actually grow thicker and stronger than on Earth. This is because your heart does not have to work so hard to move blood and other fluid from your feet to your upper body because there is no gravity. What happens is that the heart still pulls on the fluid in the legs, which now comes out much more easily. This causes the upper body to have more fluid and more pressure, which causes stress. Stress is always what makes bone grow and change. So, more pressure, more growth in the skull.

The bones in the hands will probably be normal because the baby/child/adult will use his hands just like on Earth. The feet will probably not grow much because they don’t get the stress from having the weight of your whole body on them. Ribs are interesting. Ribs protect your lungs and give support to your body so they don’t collapse. They would probably be okay, but develop thinner than on Earth, so they wouldn’t be nearly as strong. The spine is really going to be affected. The gravity won’t push/pull down on you, so the vertebrae won’t feel the stress, and they won’t grow. But they will get stress from the spinal cord as it grows and pushes out. You would probably end up with thinner, very easily crushed vertebrae.

Muscles work the same way. They need stress to grow and develop. Gravity is a stress force that pulls in one direction causing the muscle to develop in the right shape. So, if it is a muscle that won’t be used much (say, the muscles that move your feet), they won’t grow nearly as strong. Some muscles will be almost the same, such as your hand muscles. Other muscles, like your heart, will be different. Your heart won’t have to work as hard because there is no gravity to make blood circulation difficult. This takes a while to happen though. With a baby just born, probably the heart will never develop nearly as strong as a baby on Earth will.

Muscles and bones work together. The muscles are attached to bone, and they are very tightly connected. If you exercise a muscle, it pulls on the bone and causes a pulling stress. This helps the bone grow stronger in that area. This is why kids are told to play around outside when they are young - their bones grow very fast and if the child does a lot of exercise, the muscles get strong, making the bone very strong.

So, a baby born in space is going to have pretty strange and weak bones in most parts of their body. This shouldn’t affect them too much if they spend their whole life in space, but they will be in a lot of trouble if they come back to Earth. Their leg and feet bones will be too weak to hold them, the spine will probably crush under its own weight. The heart muscle will not be strong enough to pump blood around the whole body because of gravity pulling the blood down, and leg muscles will be too weak for you to stand. Basically, your bones and muscles will be much too heavy to support, and you will fall down in a big heap and die.

But if you are a baby born in space and someone drops you on your head when you return to Earth, your skull will be nice and thick.

[sources: x x x] For more info check this video.

lipstick-autistic:

Please stop saying autistic people ‘have the minds of [insert age here]’.

An eighteen-year-old autistic person does not have the mind of a child, they have the mind of an eighteen-year-old autistic person. 

Stop infantilizing autistic people.