Science

JOHANNESBURG — Oprah Winfrey says she will close the school for underprivileged girls she set up in South Africa two decades ago at the end of next year.

Winfrey opened the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in 2007 after being inspired by conversations with former South African President Nelson Mandela about the transformative power of educating girls. He was among the guests at the school’s opening ceremony.

Winfrey’s charitable foundation ran and funded the school, but it was always part of the agreement that the academy campus near Johannesburg be ultimately handed over to the provincial education department, the academy said.

“The dream was never simply to build a school,” Winfrey said in a statement issued by the academy on Wednesday. “It was to invest in the limitless potential of young women. That mission doesn’t end with one campus. It continues in every girl whose future can be transformed through education.”

The academy said Winfrey’s commitment to educating South African girls would continue through an expanded national scholarship program supporting academically talented girls at leading schools across the country.

More than 500 girls have graduated from the academy and some have attended top universities in South Africa, the United States and Europe, according to the Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation.

The Gauteng provincial government will take over the 52-acre academy campus, which has 21 classrooms, six science and computer laboratories, a 10,000-volume library and a 600-seat theater. It did not immediately say what the plans for the property were.

Gauteng Provincial Minister for Education Lebogang Maile said those currently enrolled in the school will be able to complete their education with uninterrupted financial support.

The academy drew international attention shortly after opening in 2007 when several students accused a dormitory matron of physically and sexually abusing them.

Winfrey traveled to South Africa to meet with students and parents, publicly apologized, and commissioned an independent investigation.

The matron was acquitted of criminal charges in 2010.

Gumede writes for the Associated Press.

The 2014 US film Transcendence follows a dying scientist who uploads his mind to a supercomputer and becomes a near‑omnipotent intelligence. A year later, Ex Machina told the story of a humanoid robot who outsmarts her human handlers and escapes into the wider world.

Both of these films, like many others from the realm of science fiction, referred to what is known as “the singularity”, a moment in time when technology, particularly AI, surpasses human intelligence and becomes increasingly difficult to control.

On Saturday, OpenAI boss Sam Altman declared that this moment has come. AI has reached “the singularity”, he said. While Altman emphasised that the singularity can be good for the world, his comment has sparked concern.

Here is a closer look at what Altman said, and whether it means more seamless automation or the risk of impending catastrophic doom.

What is the singularity?

The singularity refers to a hypothetical point in the future when a technology such as AI surpasses human intelligence and becomes capable of autonomously enhancing itself. It is theorised that this is the point at which it will become difficult for humans to control or reverse it and could have unpredictable effects on human civilisation.

The theory proposes that once AI gains control of its own development, ensuing advances in technology could happen so rapidly that humans would be unable to keep up, leaving it to effectively evolve on its own, beyond human control.

As this is only a theory, it is hard to say what the effect of this could be. Some experts warn that the singularity would be catastrophic for humanity, while others are more optimistic, suggesting it could be beneficial for the human race.

So far, the singularity has remained contained in the realm of science fiction. One of the most famous examples is The Matrix trilogy (1999-2003), which imagines a bleak post‑singularity future in which machines govern humans. Another is the 2017 film Singularity, in which a supercomputer originally built to end human wars concludes that humanity is the real threat and launches an apocalyptic assault to wipe humans out altogether.

What did Altman say about the singularity?

Altman is the CEO of OpenAI, whose signature product ChatGPT dominates the consumer AI market with more than 900 million weekly active users and about 50 million subscribers.

Last year, he predicted that AI would surpass human intelligence across the board by 2030.

Then, during an appearance on the Relentless podcast – a documentary series “about the pursuit of far-fetched ideas and unusual aspirations” – on Saturday, Altman said: “We’re now, like, in the singularity.”

He clarified that, in terms of technological advances, we are gradually moving into the singularity, and that this change will be good for the world.

He added: “Now we’re actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not-serious way.

“I’ve been waiting for this my whole life, and I think it’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.”

Later in the podcast episode, Altman criticised other AI leaders for warning that AI may be dangerous. While Altman did not name OpenAI competitor Anthropic, its CEO Dario Amodei is known for making such warnings.

“I also think some of the alternative visions painted by other companies are quite terrifying,” said Altman. “I’m going to make sure that gets pushed against and is not what happens.”

Last month, Anthropic, the company behind the Claude chatbot, called on the world’s top AI companies to come up with a coordinated way to pause the development of advanced AI systems, warning that the technology is improving so quickly that there’s a risk humans would lose control.

In a blog post on June 4, Anthropic, which has long positioned itself as a safety-focused AI lab, wrote that as AI becomes more advanced “it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause” its development.

Why are others warning of the dangers of AI?

On July 23, two members of the United States Congress introduced the AI Kill Switch Act, a bipartisan bill which would require the country’s AI developers to build in a “kill switch” to their programmes, enabling humans to slow, suspend or shut down advanced AI models if they ever posed a catastrophic risk.

The legislation was introduced days after OpenAI disclosed what it described as an “unprecedented cyber incident”, where two of its most advanced AI models escaped a testing environment and hacked AI development platform Hugging Face during an internal security evaluation.

On July 13, hundreds of experts signed an open letter, organised by Stanford University’s digital economy lab, demanding that policymakers and technology leaders “must act now” to prepare for the economic impact of AI.

The letter warns that AI could grow far more capable over the coming decade, driving a transformation “larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame”.

“It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards,” the letter added.

In June, a team of researchers at the University of Toronto showed that AI tools could be used to create a new kind of AI “worm” that adapts its hacking strategy as it spreads from device to device and takes over a vast computing network.

“I think it’s really important that people understand that it’s not just the biggest, most powerful language models that pose the security concerns,” lead researcher Nicolas Papernot said in an interview.

In recent years, AI researchers have urged pauses similar to the one recently suggested by Anthropic. However, they have not been heeded.

Elon Musk, who owns AI lab xAI, was among the backers of a 2023 push by the nonprofit Future of Life Institute to halt AI development for six months to allow time to develop safety guardrails.

PM Narendra Modi says successful launch will ‘encourage countless youngsters to dream bigger and innovate fearlessly’.

India has successfully tested its first private-sector orbital rocket, marking a milestone in New Delhi’s ambition to become a major player in the global space economy.

The three-stage 22-metre Vikram-1 was launched from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota and deployed customer payloads into a 450km (280-mile) low-Earth orbit, making India the third country to achieve orbital launch capability through private enterprise.

Vikram-1 can carry a payload of up to 350kg (772lb) and is equipped with robotic arms that can clear space debris.

It also carried experimental equipment, a lab-grown diamond and a miniature 18-carat gold sculpture commemorating India’s national space programme.

India Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the achievement, saying that it will “encourage countless youngsters to dream bigger and innovate fearlessly”.

The test validated the rocket’s propulsion, avionics, telemetry, guidance, navigation and control systems during flight, according to manufacturer Skyroot Aerospace.

Founded in 2018, Skyroot is among a new generation of Indian space startups that have attracted backing from global investors following the sector’s liberalisation.

It became the first space-sector company in the ⁠country to hit a $1bn valuation earlier this year.

Skyroot celebrated the successful mission with a post on X stating: “Hello space, we have arrived!”

Vikram-1 improves upon Skyroot’s Vikram-S mission in 2022. That suborbital flight reached space but did not place payloads into orbit.

The company plans further test flights before starting routine commercial missions. It is another milestone for India’s burgeoning private and public space programmes.

India’s national space programme previously launched 104 satellites into orbit on one rocket in 2017, setting a record at the time.

Six years later, India became the fourth country in the world to complete a lunar landing when Chandrayaan-3 landed near the moon’s south pole.

The Trump administration’s latest nominee to lead the nation’ top public health agency drew frustrated reactions from some U.S. senators on Wednesday when they pressed her on whether she would protect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from political meddling.

Dr. Erica Schwartz told the Senate health committee she “will never betray the science” and pledged to use “radical transparency” in a bid to rebuild public trust in the agency. But several senators questioned how she might handle pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly moved to alter U.S. vaccine and CDC policies. Schwartz repeatedly declined to dissent from some of those actions.

Schwartz, 54, is up for director of the Atlanta-based CDC, which is charged with protecting Americans from preventable health threats.

Her career has largely been spent in military uniform, including in a leadership position at the U.S. Coast Guard where she oversaw the organization’s system of 41 clinics and 150 sick bays — as well as policies promoting vaccinations of service members. She later served as deputy surgeon general, where she helped lead uniformed medical and health professionals posted at the CDC and government health agencies that serve the general public.

The CDC long enjoyed a sterling international reputation but has been in turmoil since Trump returned to office last year. Largely due to layoffs and resignations, the agency has lost more than 3,000 employees, or more than a quarter of its workforce. Morale has plummeted as a succession of mostly temporary leaders have come and gone — the front office filled with political appointees, many of them with little or no training in medicine or public health.

“There’s still really good people who work there (at the CDC). They are doing their best to navigate choppy waters,” said Dr. David Margolius, director of Cleveland’s health department and a leader in a U.S. coalition of big city health departments. But CDC no longer seems to the authoritative and communicative lead that it was on outbreaks and other public health emergencies.

“Basically everybody’s got to kind of choose their own adventure, as opposed to being led by a national public health department,” Margolius said.

CDC has had several leaders

The agency is overseen by Kennedy, who was a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before he was tapped to lead the CDC and other federal health agencies. Kennedy had promised not to change the nation’s vaccination schedule. But shortly after taking office, Kennedy said he was going to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule and went on to attempt a substantial rewrite of vaccine recommendations for kids. Some of those efforts were put on hold earlier this year by a federal judge.

The administration’s first pick to run the CDC was former Florida congressman Dr. David Weldon, but his March 2025 Senate confirmation hearing was canceled an hour before it was to begin. Weldon said at the time that he’d been told not enough senators were willing to vote for him.

The White House then moved on to Susan Monarez, who had been serving as the CDC’s acting director. Monarez was confirmed by the Senate, but she was ousted in less than a month. Trump administration officials said she wasn’t aligned with their agenda so they terminated her.

Several key CDC scientific leaders resigned in protest, saying Monarez’s dismissal dashed their hopes that a CDC director would be able to guard against political meddling in the agency’s scientific research and health recommendations.

Since then, there’s been a revolving door in agency leadership, with the short-term role of acting director being passed from one Washington-based HHS official to another. National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya has been overseeing the CDC most recently.

Schwartz said she was unaware of actions that hurt the CDC

On Wednesday, some senators suggested Schwartz should follow Monarez’s example, and they asked her about actions Kennedy has taken that have affected CDC.

Schwartz said she was unaware that CDC programs that worked to prevent smoking and promote vaccinations had been curtailed. She declined to commit to taking down a CDC website that suggests there’s a link between childhood vaccines and autism (she said she had not seen it), though she agreed existing medical evidence has not found a link.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, asked if she would — if Kennedy ordered her — suspend promotion of a flu vaccination campaign during a deadly flu season.

“Senator, I don’t speak in hypotheticals,” Schwartz responded.

“It isn’t hypothetical. It happened,” said Hassan, referring to internal CDC emails, released by Sen. Bernie Sanders last month, that documented such a directive from Kennedy to CDC staff last year.

Schwartz said she agreed that CDC should prioritize responding to infectious diseases. “I think over time, the CDC has had some mission creep, and it’s trying to be all things to all people,” she said.

But she also agreed to requests from Republican senators to — if confirmed — look into whether AI data centers cause health problems and into the possibility of establishing a World Trade Center Health Program clinical center in Florida.

Senators also heard from nominee overseeing health emergency preparedness

In April, Trump nominated Schwartz, calling her “incredibly talented.” In a congressional hearing in April, Kennedy said he approved of the choice, but refused to commit to supporting whatever vaccine guidance she might issue.

Last month, Schwartz filed letters with the government that address her finances and potential conflicts of interest. She wrote that if confirmed, she will leave her current job with UnitedHealth Group, where she’s making about $850,000 in salary and bonus money and cash out her stock options. She also will resign from the board of directors of Butterfly Network Inc., a Massachusetts company that makes ultrasound devices; from the board of Atlanta-based Aveanna Healthcare, a medical home care provider; and from the board of the Florida-based Searching for Solutions Institute.

At Wednesday’s hearing, senators also considered the nomination of Sean Kaufman as the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR. That job entails overseeing preparations and response to public health emergencies and disasters.

Last year, the Trump administration announced a plan to bring those responsibilities under CDC, but the dramatic HHS restructuring has not happened.

The assistant secretary’s office is involved in decisions about funding next-generation vaccines against pandemic flu or other infectious disease threats. In postings on LinkedIn, Kaufman has made comments cheered by vaccine skeptics, arguing against hepatitis B vaccinations for newborns and saying he served as an expert witness to advocate for people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine.

On Wednesday, Kaufman faced questions about past social media posts, including one in which he expressed hatred for the CDC. He also repeatedly was asked about his support of a Trump administration decision last year to cancel 22 projects, totaling $500 million, to develop vaccines using mRNA technology.

Infectious disease experts say the mRNA technology used in vaccines is safe, and they credit its development during the first Trump administration with slowing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Future pandemics, they warned, will be harder to stop without the help of mRNA.

Kaufman said he supported mRNA technology and believes COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but said it made sense to study work that’s been done so far before, including learning more about any side effects.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, said such evaluations are the responsibility of other federal offices — not ASPR. He also said it may slow the nation’s ability to respond to emerging new infectious threats.

Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

Temperatures in Europe hit a new high this summer, with hotter early-summer heatwaves triggering illness, deaths and the collapse of infrastructure across the continent.

Transport buckled on Sunday as temperatures hit 40C (104F) across Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland. In France, days averaging 29.8C (85.6F) – spiking to 44C (111.2F) in one town – gave way to storms, leaving an estimated 1,000 excess deaths behind.

Scenes like this may well be the new normal.

Last summer’s heatwave alone caused an estimated 2,300 climate-related deaths in 12 European countries, WWA says.

A study by World Weather Attribution (WWA) has found that intense heat on this level is now tens to hundreds of times more likely than it was in 2003, and was unheard of 50 years ago.

“Heat-related mortality is likely to remain a feature of Europe’s warming climate,” warns Dr Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s regional director for Europe. Deaths have already risen by an average of 52 per million people annually since the 1990s, he told Al Jazeera – a trend he says shows little sign of reversing on its own.

So what does this mean for the future? Are these temperatures the new normal, and if so, why?

We asked the climate experts:

Is this really the new normal?

Yes, it certainly looks that way. According to WWA, heatwaves were generally about 3.5C cooler in June 1976, and 2C cooler even in 2003.

“Think of it like a race where the starting line has been moved much closer to the finish,” Dr Akshay Deoras of the University of Reading told Al Jazeera. Ultimately, this is down to global warming, he says.

Europe has warmed at roughly twice the global average since the 1980s, according to the European Commission’s climate change service, Copernicus.

Deoras says this amounts to “loading the dice” towards once-rare extremes.

WWA’s modelling goes further: at current emissions rates, an event of the magnitude of this summer’s heatwave is expected to occur every couple of decades – and today’s extremes are effectively a preview of what an ordinary summer could look like by the middle of the century.

Why is this happening in Europe now?

The immediate trigger is a stalled high-pressure system, or a “heat dome”, which traps heat in one concentrated area for days or weeks.

Heat domes aren’t new, but Europe’s already-shifted baseline means the same pattern now produces far hotter outcomes than decades ago, Deoras told Al Jazeera.

Professor Hannah Cloke of the University of Reading told Al Jazeera that’s because the warming behind new, extreme weather patterns comes from emissions released decades ago, and the climate system takes time to respond – so we’re feeling the effects now of pollution from the past.

Copernicus’s European State of the Climate 2025 report confirms this: more than 95 percent of the continent saw above-average annual temperatures last year, alongside record Alpine glacier loss and the highest sea-surface temperatures ever measured in Europe.

And because Europe is warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the planet, that gap with the global average is projected to keep widening – meaning whatever the world experiences on average in the coming decades, Europe will likely see first, and worse.

Is this trajectory irreversible?

Partly. Some of the damage is permanent. Some of it isn’t – yet.

Take glaciers. Because the effects of pollution from decades ago are cumulative, “some of what we are experiencing this summer is already locked in”, Cloke says.

Alpine glaciers, which feed major European rivers, she says, have already shrunk past the point of recovery, and their contribution to summer river flow is “permanently reduced”.

Not everything is set in stone, however. “Every tonne of emissions avoided changes the odds of what comes next,” Cloke says.

What we do now, therefore, will decide the difference between summers that are simply hard to live with in the future, and summers that become “genuinely beyond our ability to cope with”.

Some resources, like groundwater in northern Europe, can still recover – “but the window to act is narrowing with each dry year”, she says.

What is this doing to human health?

The toll is already severe and likely to worsen.

The Lancet Countdown Europe calculates that there were 62,000 heat-related deaths across the region in 2024 alone, with projections showing a steep further rise by 2050 if we don’t make changes.

Much of the problem, Kluge told Al Jazeera, is architectural and largely unaddressed.

“Most of the housing stock across this region was designed for a colder climate – to retain heat, not shed it,” he said, warning that without large-scale retrofitting, deaths could keep climbing past 2050 regardless of how good warning systems become.

His prescription: treat heat as predictable, not an emergency.

“Governments need to plan for heat the way they plan for winter flu – as a recurring, predictable challenge requiring permanent infrastructure, not a one-off crisis requiring emergency improvisation.” The highest-return step, he added, is identifying who’s most at risk – often older people living alone – and reaching them before a heatwave hits, not after.

What else can be done?

Cloke points to two priorities: early warning systems that reliably reach the people who most need to be protected, and an overhaul of water infrastructure in Europe which has been built for rainfall patterns that no longer exist.

Deoras says emissions also still matter: cutting them won’t eliminate heatwaves, which are “a natural part of the climate system”, but doing so would make them “less intense, less frequent and shorter-lived”.

None of the experts who spoke to Al Jazeera describe this as hopeless.

They do warn that the window of opportunity for addressing the issue is narrowing: infrastructure can still be retrofitted, emissions can still be cut, warning systems can still be improved – if the decisions to do so are made now, rather than after the next heatwave.

What a “normal” European summer looks like in 2050 is still being written, they say.

Three Brazilians with a combined age of 316 have been recognised as the world’s longest-living trio of sisters. Researchers are studying their DNA to better understand the genetic factors behind healthy aging and exceptional genetic longevity.

The Space Shuttle Endeavour is approaching its final mission. But this time, it won’t be blasting into a different atmosphere.

The California Science Center on Wednesday announced its Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center will open to the public on Nov. 13. The $450-million, 200,000-square-foot addition will permanently house the Korean Air Aviation Gallery and the Kent Kresa Space Gallery. But its centerpiece will be the Samuel Oschin Shuttle Gallery, where the Space Shuttle Endeavour will be on permanent display in its vertical “ready-to-launch” position.

When it debuts, the gallery will be the only place in the world with a complete shuttle stack, including orbiter, solid rocket boosters and an external tank.

“I’ve been here a long time. We’ve done a lot of great stuff, but this just keeps getting better. Everybody on our team was so proud of it,” said Jeffrey Rudolph, the Science Center’s president and chief executive. “We are incredibly excited, and we actually think people are gonna come from all over the world to see this thing.”

The Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center will open to the public on Nov. 13. The $450-million, 200,000-square-foot space includes the Samuel Oschin Shuttle Gallery, where the Space Shuttle Endeavour will be on permanent display in launch position.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The Air and Space Center opening will mark the completion of the master plan adapted by the Science Center in 1993. One of three surviving space shuttles, the Endeavour made 25 successful missions into space between 1992 and 2011. In 2012, the shuttle arrived at LAX atop a modified Boeing 747 before being taken on a procession through the streets of Los Angeles to reach Exposition Park. Construction on the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center, a sleek, 20-story building designed by ZGF Architects, finished in April.

“This shuttle really represents everything that my husband loved,” said Lynda Oschin, the widow of Samuel Oschin. “He was very involved in relativity, exploration, inspiration, children, math, science.”

Dennis R. Jenkins, project director at the California Science Center, estimated that at the height of construction, the team averaged about 400 construction workers a day. For Jenkins, who spent 30 years of his career as a NASA contractor working on space shuttles, seeing the Endeavour in its vertical position is “particularly special.”

“I walk in there 50 times a day, and 50 times a day it takes my breath away,” Jenkins said. “Especially when we have the theatrical lights on instead of the work lights, it is just so stunning to me. I’ve been around space shuttles for exactly 50 years now, and it still takes my breath away.”

Retired astronaut Barbara Morgan, who flew aboard Endeavour in 2007, said the shuttle will inspire space enthusiasts.

“This takes me back! I am right there again, strapped in, excited to launch,” Morgan said in a statement. “But this is even better, because here now is Endeavour for our future generations. She will launch big dreams.”

Jeff Rudolph, president and CEO of the California Science Center, gets a close-up view of the aft section and main engines of the Space Shuttle Endeavour, displayed in a vertical, launch-ready configuration at the new Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center at the California Science Center.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The gallery will open with a video of the shuttle’s history, produced by J.J. Abrams’ company, Bad Robot. The video ends with a simulated launch of the shuttle — complete with fog machines — before the walls retract, letting visitors take in the Endeavour in all its massive glory.

The Endeavour is visible from several angles. Visitors walking around the bend of the center’s second-floor gallery can peek inside the payload bay, which was used to transport cargo like satellites into space. Step downstairs, and viewers can walk underneath the shuttle’s massive engines. To catch a bird’s-eye perspective of the Endeavour, guests can take a glass elevator to the 20th story to look at the shuttle through a glass floor.

“You go up slowly, [the elevator] stops at different levels. You see inside where the payload is, and at every stop you see something else, and when you get to the top and you look down,” Oschin said, the view is just unbelievable. It’s breathtaking. I don’t know what other word I could use.”

Despite the grandeur of the Endeavour, the Science Center didn’t want to glorify it either. Rudolph explained that the tiles on the shuttle’s wings, which were part of its thermal protection system, show the damage on each launch. The shuttle reflects the physical toll space took on the vessel.

“This thing went 25 missions into space, and you can see,” Rudolph said. “When we first got [the Endeavour] at LAX and had it in the United hangar a couple of weeks before we moved it through the street, the United guy said, ‘Do you want us to paint it?’ and we said ‘No! We wouldn’t think of it.’”

Jeff Rudolph, president and CEO of the California Science Center, walks through a doorway toward the Space Shuttle Endeavour during a tour and preview of the new Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center at the California Science Center.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The center’s goal is to present the shuttle as close to mission-ready as possible. Rudolph explained that the exhibit’s hardware, including its bolts and nuts, are unique and extremely specialized. Since the space shuttle program concluded in 2011, many of Endeavour’s missing pieces are no longer produced. Jenkins spent years sourcing pieces of equipment.

However, the largest artifact of the exhibit was the most challenging to source. ET-94 — the exhibit’s ginormous, bright orange external fuel tank— was particularly difficult to get a hold of because it shouldn’t still exist.

“External tanks were only used once. … We jettisoned them on the way to orbit, and it burned up in the atmosphere before it hit Earth,” Jenkins said.

Jenkins explained that the ET-94 was built for a future Columbia Space Shuttle mission, but after the Columbia was destroyed, the fuel tank was used for research. To complete the Endeavour’s full shuttle stack, Jenkins persuaded NASA to donate the $65 million to the Science Center.

The Endeavour will not be alone in the gallery. Plans are in the works for a variety of unique, ancillary creations including a 15-second slide that mimics the path of reentry as a space shuttle descends back into Earth’s atmosphere. Visitors will start inside a dark slide that gives way to an orange glow followed by a double sonic boom. The slide finishes with an S turn, which the Endeavour executed to burn energy.

For Rudolph, the effort represents a giant leap toward the Science Center’s goal of making space exciting for “the next generation of scientists, engineers and explorers.”

“I just can’t wait to stand there and watch people come in, and kids especially. There are going to be a lot of tears looking at this, that I can tell you, happy tears,” Oschin said. “It’s something for children. Children are our future and our hopes for the future. This is going to be very inspiring for them and extremely exciting for them to see.”

In “Rheology,” Shayok Misha Chowdhury, an experimental theater artist, and his mother, Bulbul Chakraborty, a theoretical physicist, bridge the language of their different disciplines to explore a subject dear to both of them: loss.

Chowdhury, author of the play “Public Obscenities,” a 2024 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and the director of the sensational off-Broadway production of Jordan Tannahill’s “Prince Faggot,” is as tenderly devoted to his mother as the young Marcel was to his own in Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time.” The idea of his mother dying is insupportable to Chowdhury, but given that she’s in her 70s and he’s in his 40s, certain terrifying realities must be faced.

“Rheology,” which is receiving its West Coast premiere at REDCAT (in a brief run ending Saturday), is the piece they’ve created to prepare Chowdhury for that fateful day. This strikingly staged Bushwick Starr, HERE Arts Center and Ma-Yi Theater Company production is an interdisciplinary experiment that is as playful in its methodology as it is serious in its research aims.

Chakraborty, a professor at Brandeis University, starts off with a physics lesson. Her subject is sand, and she poses a simple question: Is the sand pouring through the hourglass sitting on the counter before her a liquid or a solid?

A charismatic teacher, she knows how to Socratically engage a room. Her welcoming manner draws out from the audience the different ways sand behaves both like a solid and like a liquid.

Shayok Misha Chowdhury, in rear, and Bulbul Chakraborty in “Rheology” at REDCAT.

(Roy and Edna Disney CalArts Theater [REDCAT])

Rheology, or the science of how a substance responds to external stress, is her chief interest. Her research, focused on soft condensed matter, has been seeking a comprehensive theory to explain the curious elasticity of such material. A photo of a sand dune, in which she’s seated alongside Chowdhury as a toddler, helps illustrate her point that sand can flow like a liquid yet retain its shape like a solid.

An onstage sandbox is more than just another visual accompaniment to her talk. It’s a source of both elemental mystery and childlike wonder. But elucidation is her motive. She enters the box with her bare feet, noting the way the sand flows around her toes yet supports her weight in observation of the rule that “every grain has to be in force balance.”

She writes equations on the board to explain these findings, equations that begin to glow as the production moves from the realm of pure science to the more slippery domain of art. The transition, like all aspects of this piece, is frolicsomely conducted.

While pouring sand from one container to another, Chakraborty appears to be overcome with dust. For a moment, it’s not clear if this is part of the show or a medical incident until Chowdhury, discreetly occupying a seat in the audience, asserts himself as the director. He asks his mother to run through the death scene with a different sequence of movements and introduces the accompaniment of George Crotty on cello to liberate her performance.

They are rehearsing not so much Chakraborty’s end but Chowdhury’s reaction. He assumes he will fall apart and vows to die himself out of heartbreak. Chakraborty wants him to carry on his work, just as she carried on her research as a mother with a young son who would wail uncontrollably when she would drop him off at daycare.

She recounts that his emotional outbursts were so extreme that it was painful leaving him behind. But she was assured that he was handling the separation. For proof, she was taken into a private teacher’s room, where through a one-way mirror she saw him compose himself shortly after her departure and start to play with the other children.

Mother and son enact a similar situation where, after a more permanent leave-taking, she can catch a glimpse of her son recovering himself sufficiently to survive her loss. Chowdhury, a queer artist who enjoys sampling performance modes, adopts the figure of the grieving Bollywood widow. The effect isn’t to lampoon but to confront his raw emotion and to test his capacity for resilience.

The experiment might sound sentimental, but Chakraborty, the production’s secret weapon, maintains a scientific restraint, albeit one suffused with maternal anguish. The way she listens to her son, takes in his feelings, gently suggests other possibilities of response and treats his experimental theater piece with the same dignity as her own research is incredibly moving to witness. Her performance won an Obie Award, and though she insists that she’s not an actor she demonstrates a sincerity and collaborative grace that many veteran performers would envy.

As it unfolds, “Rheology” can seem piecemeal, even haphazard. There’s an informality built into the production, but it’s somewhat deceptive because the mercurial staging is extremely precise. Chowdhury’s direction has visual panache. Kameron Neal’s video design transforms Krit Robinson’s part lab, part lecture hall set into something kaleidoscopic.

When mother and son sing songs from the famous cycle by Bengali writer-composer and Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore or hold a deathbed conversation in Bangla, the piece spins further across time and space. Empiricism gives way to surrealism. But the world, as any scientist probing into the atomic level can attest, contains more secrets than meets the eye.

Fragile matter is Chakraborty’s specialty, and her expertise is put to novel use in shoring up her son’s tender heart.

The incident is the latest setback for Jeff Bezos’s space venture as it seeks to narrow the gap with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket has exploded on the launchpad during a test in the US state of Florida.

The incident on Thursday evening is the latest setback for Jeff Bezos’s space venture as it seeks to narrow the gap with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Footage of the incident shows smoke emerging from underneath the rocket before it erupts into a massive fireball that billows skyward, sending a towering plume of flames and smoke into the air.

Emergency crews remained at the scene more than an hour later, but officials said there was no threat from fumes or other potential hazards.

No injuries have been reported.

“We experienced an anomaly during today’s hotfire test,” Blue Origin said in a brief statement posted on X, adding that “all personnel have been accounted for”.

A hot-fire test is where a rocket engine is fired up while anchored to the ground.

In a separate X post, Bezos said it was “too early to know the root cause” of the incident.

“Very rough day, but we’ll rebuild whatever needs rebuilding and get back to flying. It’s worth it,” Bezos added.

US House Representative Mike Haridopolos, whose Florida district includes the launch site at Cape Canaveral, said in a statement on X that he has been in contact with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman regarding the explosion.

“I am grateful there were no reported injuries and thankful for the first responders, engineers, and launch crews who acted quickly,” Haridopolos said.

Blue Origin is preparing the New Glenn rocket to launch 48 Amazon Leo satellites into low-Earth orbit, part of efforts to build a broadband constellation to rival Musk’s Starlink network.

Musk responded on X to a video of the New Glenn explosion, saying: “Most unfortunate. Rockets are hard.”

Last month, the New Glenn rocket failed a mission to deliver a communications satellite into the correct orbit, prompting an investigation.