With reclaimed land previously allocated to cars, the Grijalva River boardwalk offers generous public spaces and reconnects the Mexican city of Villahermosa to its river In Villahermosa, nature reigns supreme. Surrounded by rivers, lagoons, wild vegetation and the scorching heat of a humid tropical climate, the city’s identity is shaped by intense and unpredictable natural forces. The capital of the Mexican state of Tabasco was founded in 1564 on the banks of the Grijalva River, a vital trade route that has significantly shaped the city’s development. For locals, the river has long been both blessing and threat; major floods have been recorded since the 17th century. A devastating flood in 2007 submerged what officials estimated to be 80 per cent of the city, damaging or destroying more than 120,000 homes. In the aftermath of the inundation, high concrete retaining walls were built along both banks of the Grijalva River to prevent further flooding. While this was an understandable measure at first glance, it consequently caused residents to lose both their visual and physical connection with the river. As a result, people moved, particularly from the western bank where the historical centre is located, to new areas further away from the Grijalva River. The riverfront was left to deteriorate into a troubled zone. On the eastern bank, the neighbourhood of Gaviotas was already considered unsafe before the flood, yet it maintained more of its residential character. In 2022, 15 years after the dramatic flood, then‑president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, more commonly known as AMLO, announced the construction of a new 6km‑long riverfront promenade in Villahermosa, the capital of his home state. The idea was to enable the population to once again take pride in and live with their river, looking to Paris and Rome as examples. The monumental task, with its large urban scale and the population’s psychological trauma, was entrusted to the Ministry of Agricultural, Territorial and Urban Development (SEDATU) as part of their Programa de Mejoramiento Urbano (Urban Improvement Programme, or PMU). This programme aimed to use architecture as an ‘instrument of social transformation’. High expectations were placed on these projects; architects were asked to create ‘places of national pride’ while improving everyday living conditions. The architectural trio of Alejandro Castro Jiménez Labora, Mauricio Rocha Iturbide, and Óscar Rodríguez Castañeda, along with their teams, were commissioned to design a linear park along both banks of the Grijalva. Each architect contributed their strength: Castro brought his expertise in poetic urban furniture; Rocha his sensitive and atmospheric architectural approach; and Rodríguez his thoughtful urban and traffic planning skills. The SEDATU team provided technical and participatory expertise, enabling contextual sensitivity by sharing essential information about the site’s topography, soil conditions and water flows. From the city’s existing observatory, the Torre del Caballero landmark, visitors enjoy an excellent view over the redesigned riverbanks. The historical centre and the Gaviotas neighbourhood now form a single ensemble, while the intervention carefully responds to the different conditions found along the length of the river. The project’s main objective is to reclaim some of the land previously allocated to cars and create a promenade for pedestrians and slower vehicles, punctuated with public spaces and facilities. On both sides of the river, cars are now limited to just one or two grey asphalt lanes. Running alongside are generous cycle paths and pedestrian walkways made of earth‑coloured concrete. Speed bumps in the same material and colour connect the pavements on either side of the road while helping to limit traffic speed to 30km/h, further enhancing pedestrian safety. Several design elements are found along almost the entire promenade. A ribbon of light‑grey benches delineates the edge of the elevated riverfront; stone walls, steps and ramps are used to negotiate the slight changes in level; planters and lush vegetation soften the transition to the walkways, creating a welcome buffer from street traffic. The most visually striking components are the tall, red‑pigmented concrete light poles on the elevated path, adorned with elegant L‑shaped steel light fixtures, which establish a strong and cohesive visual rhythm. Only upon closer inspection you notice the 2007 retaining walls peeking through the dense tropical vegetation. Removing these unattractive concrete barriers was never an option; they stand as a symbol of successful flood protection for the local population. The architectural team ingeniously built the elevated promenade atop the existing wall – an effective concealment from the street side while simultaneously inviting residents to reconnect with the Grijalva.  At the foot of the observatory, directly below the retaining wall, the earth‑toned concrete platforms of the Carlos A Madrazo Becerra Park stretch towards the river. Visitors can access the park via a ramp from the promenade on the western bank or by ferry from the opposite side. In the park, concrete furnishings invite visitors to linger among tropical vegetation set against tall natural stone walls. Importantly, it is a space that is durable and requires minimal maintenance – a survival formula for public parks in the Mexican context. Small traces on the concrete benches reveal that the park weathered its baptism of fire last year: the design accommodates the river’s natural dynamics, adapting to fluctuating water levels without compromising public safety. Beyond providing much‑needed shade, the extensive planting of native, low‑maintenance plants on both riverbanks has improved soil stability. Above the park, on a broad extension of the elevated pathway, stand three long, elegant buildings with large cantilevered roofs supported by hefty beams resting on distinctive double columns. The tall glass walls that enclose the interiors are set back, creating a visual flow between interior and exterior spaces. While the beams evoke timber construction, they – like the columns – are made of the same pigmented concrete used for the promenade paving. Despite their refined composition, these structures have remained largely unused since their completion over a year ago, neither serving their intended function as restaurants nor hosting alternative uses. Even the beautifully designed park sees only limited public engagement. The ambitious goal of SEDATU with the PMU projects to ‘counteract violence and strengthen the social fabric’ appears, for now, to have fallen short in this area. According to national statistics, Villahermosa ranks first in perceived insecurity among Mexican cities. This sense of insecurity is tangible on the promenade by the city centre, where buildings that look abandoned contribute to an atmosphere of neglect. The situation is markedly different on the opposite riverbank, in the Gaviotas neighbourhood. Construction of the 3.5km promenade on this side began in 2021 with three open pavilions housing several small kiosks, which quickly evolved into popular taco stands. The Plaza Solidaridad, revitalised by the architectural trio, draws people from the surrounding vibrant neighbourhood. Further south, the final section that was built is a large sports area and children’s playground, which were embraced by the local community even before their official inauguration in February 2024. Especially after sunset, when the air cools, the well‑lit Gaviotas riverfront comes to life. During daylight hours, however, air‑conditioned shopping centres remain the preferred gathering places for the residents of Villahermosa. Rocha describes the city’s new promenade as a ‘jazz composition’, a striking metaphor that speaks of rhythmic complexity and the freedom to improvise. With just a few designed elements and carefully selected colours, the architects have harmoniously layered the river’s urban spaces. The project is earning international recognition but, in Mexico, it faced sharp criticism and was overshadowed by accusations of nepotism. Castro is a friend of AMLO’s son, and the fact that the intervention took place in the home state of the then‑president, coupled with its substantial budget by local standards, drew considerable attention. According to residents, this undermined public acceptance. When asked about the negative press, Rocha speaks of the need to develop a ‘crisis muscle’; he says architects working on public projects in Mexico must ‘let go of perfectionism’ as much lies beyond their control.  During AMLO’s six‑year term, which ended in 2024, SEDATU implemented 1,300 PMU projects in 193 highly marginalised municipalities across the country. While many of these interventions undoubtedly improved people’s quality of life, the Villahermosa riverside project also reveals architecture’s limitations, exposing some of the programme’s weaknesses: architectural interventions often act as sticking plasters on an extensively damaged urban fabric. They are handed over from a national ministry with comprehensive expertise and funding to local governments lacking the means to sustain them. Although SEDATU conducted participatory consultations during the project’s implementation, this engagement was absent once the project was completed. Public acceptance and appropriation can take time; what this project does is send an invitation out. 2025-06-05 Reuben J Brown Share AR June 2025RoadsBuy Now

June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”

By CHRIS McGOWAN This image of Jupiter from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope’s NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) shows stunning details of the majestic planet in infrared light. (Image courtesy of NASA, ESA and CSA) Special effects have been used for decades to depict space exploration, from visits to planets and moons to zero gravity and spaceships – one need only think of the landmark 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Since that era, visual effects have increasingly grown in realism and importance. VFX have been used for entertainment and for scientific purposes, outreach to the public and astronaut training in virtual reality. Compelling images and videos can bring data to life. NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS) produces visualizations, animations and images to help scientists tell stories of their research and make science more approachable and engaging. A.J. Christensen is a senior visualization designer for the NASA Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS) at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. There, he develops data visualization techniques and designs data-driven imagery for scientific analysis and public outreach using Hollywood visual effects tools, according to NASA. SVS visualizations feature datasets from Earth-and space-based instrumentation, scientific supercomputer models and physical statistical distributions that have been analyzed and processed by computational scientists. Christensen’s specialties include working with 3D volumetric data, using the procedural cinematic software Houdini and science topics in Heliophysics, Geophysics and Astrophysics. He previously worked at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications’ Advanced Visualization Lab where he worked on more than a dozen science documentary full-dome films as well as the IMAX films Hubble 3D and A Beautiful Planet – and he worked at DNEG on the movie Interstellar, which won the 2015 Best Visual Effects Academy Award. This global map of CO2 was created by NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio using a model called GEOS, short for the Goddard Earth Observing System. GEOS is a high-resolution weather reanalysis model, powered by supercomputers, that is used to represent what was happening in the atmosphere. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) “The NASA Scientific Visualization Studio operates like a small VFX studio that creates animations of scientific data that has been collected or analyzed at NASA. We are one of several groups at NASA that create imagery for public consumption, but we are also a part of the scientific research process, helping scientists understand and share their data through pictures and video.” —A.J. Christensen, Senior Visualization Designer, NASA Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS) About his work at NASA SVS, Christensen comments, “The NASA Scientific Visualization Studio operates like a small VFX studio that creates animations of scientific data that has been collected or analyzed at NASA. We are one of several groups at NASA that create imagery for public consumption, but we are also a part of the scientific research process, helping scientists understand and share their data through pictures and video. This past year we were part of NASA’s total eclipse outreach efforts, we participated in all the major earth science and astronomy conferences, we launched a public exhibition at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History called the Earth Information Center, and we posted hundreds of new visualizations to our publicly accessible website: svs.gsfc.nasa.gov.” This is the ‘beauty shot version’ of Perpetual Ocean 2: Western Boundary Currents. The visualization starts with a rotating globe showing ocean currents. The colors used to color the flow in this version were chosen to provide a pleasing look. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) The Gulf Stream and connected currents. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) Venus, our nearby “sister” planet, beckons today as a compelling target for exploration that may connect the objects in our own solar system to those discovered around nearby stars. (Image courtesy of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center) WORKING WITH DATA While Christensen is interpreting the data from active spacecraft and making it usable in different forms, such as for science and outreach, he notes, “It’s not just spacecraft that collect data. NASA maintains or monitors instruments on Earth too – on land, in the oceans and in the air. And to be precise, there are robots wandering around Mars that are collecting data, too.” He continues, “Sometimes the data comes to our team as raw telescope imagery, sometimes we get it as a data product that a scientist has already analyzed and extracted meaning from, and sometimes various sensor data is used to drive computational models and we work with the models’ resulting output.” Jupiter’s moon Europa may have life in a vast ocean beneath its icy surface. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) HOUDINI AND OTHER TOOLS “Data visualization means a lot of different things to different people, but many people on our team interpret it as a form of filmmaking,” Christensen says. “We are very inspired by the approach to visual storytelling that Hollywood uses, and we use tools that are standard for Hollywood VFX. Many professionals in our area – the visualization of 3D scientific data – were previously using other animation tools but have discovered that Houdini is the most capable of understanding and manipulating unusual data, so there has been major movement toward Houdini over the past decade.” Satellite imagery from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) shows the Sun in ultraviolet light colorized in light brown. Seen in ultraviolet light, the dark patches on the Sun are known as coronal holes and are regions where fast solar wind gushes out into space. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) Christensen explains, “We have always worked with scientific software as well – sometimes there’s only one software tool in existence to interpret a particular kind of scientific data. More often than not, scientific software does not have a GUI, so we’ve had to become proficient at learning new coding environments very quickly. IDL and Python are the generic data manipulation environments we use when something is too complicated or oversized for Houdini, but there are lots of alternatives out there. Typically, we use these tools to get the data into a format that Houdini can interpret, and then we use Houdini to do our shading, lighting and camera design, and seamlessly blend different datasets together.” While cruising around Saturn in early October 2004, Cassini captured a series of images that have been composed into this large global natural color view of Saturn and its rings. This grand mosaic consists of 126 images acquired in a tile-like fashion, covering one end of Saturn’s rings to the other and the entire planet in between. (Image courtesy of ASA/JPL/Space Science Institute) The black hole Gargantua and the surrounding accretion disc from the 2014 movie Interstellar. (Image courtesy of DNEG and Paramount Pictures) Another visualization of the black hole Gargantua. (Image courtesy of DNEG and Paramount Pictures) INTERSTELLAR & GARGANTUA Christensen recalls working for DNEG on Interstellar (2014). “When I first started at DNEG, they asked me to work on the giant waves on Miller’s ocean planet [in the film]. About a week in, my manager took me into the hall and said, ‘I was looking at your reel and saw all this astronomy stuff. We’re working on another sequence with an accretion disk around a black hole that I’m wondering if we should put you on.’ And I said, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve done lots of accretion disks.’ So, for the rest of my time on the show, I was working on the black hole team.” He adds, “There are a lot of people in my community that would be hesitant to label any big-budget movie sequence as a scientific visualization. The typical assumption is that for a Hollywood movie, no one cares about accuracy as long as it looks good. Guardians of the Galaxy makes it seem like space is positively littered with nebulae, and Star Wars makes it seem like asteroids travel in herds. But the black hole Gargantua in Interstellar is a good case for being called a visualization. The imagery you see in the movie is the direct result of a collaboration with an expert scientist, Dr. Kip Thorne, working with the DNEG research team using the actual Einstein equations that describe the gravity around a black hole.” Thorne is a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist who taught at Caltech for many years. He has reached wide audiences with his books and presentations on black holes, time travel and wormholes on PBS and BBC shows. Christensen comments, “You can make the argument that some of the complexity around what a black hole actually looks like was discarded for the film, and they admit as much in the research paper that was published after the movie came out. But our team at NASA does that same thing. There is no such thing as an objectively ‘true’ scientific image – you always have to make aesthetic decisions around whether the image tells the science story, and often it makes more sense to omit information to clarify what’s important. Ultimately, Gargantua taught a whole lot of people something new about science, and that’s what a good scientific visualization aims to do.” The SVS produces an annual visualization of the Moon’s phase and libration comprising 8,760 hourly renderings of its precise size, orientation and illumination. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) FURTHER CHALLENGES The sheer size of the data often encountered by Christensen and his peers is a challenge. “I’m currently working with a dataset that is 400GB per timestep. It’s so big that I don’t even want to move it from one file server to another. So, then I have to make decisions about which data attributes to keep and which to discard, whether there’s a region of the data that I can cull or downsample, and I have to experiment with data compression schemes that might require me to entirely re-design the pipeline I’m using for Houdini. Of course, if I get rid of too much information, it becomes very resource-intensive to recompute everything, but if I don’t get rid of enough, then my design process becomes agonizingly slow.” SVS also works closely with its NASA partner groups Conceptual Image Lab (CIL) and Goddard Media Studios (GMS) to publish a diverse array of content. Conceptual Image Lab focuses more on the artistic side of things – producing high-fidelity renders using film animation and visual design techniques, according to NASA. Where the SVS primarily focuses on making data-based visualizations, CIL puts more emphasis on conceptual visualizations – producing animations featuring NASA spacecraft, planetary observations and simulations, according to NASA. Goddard Media Studios, on the other hand, is more focused towards public outreach – producing interviews, TV programs and documentaries. GMS continues to be the main producers behind NASA TV, and as such, much of their content is aimed towards the general public. An impact crater on the moon. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) Image of Mars showing a partly shadowed Olympus Mons toward the upper left of the image. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) Mars. Hellas Basin can be seen in the lower right portion of the image. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) Mars slightly tilted to show the Martian North Pole. (Image courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio) Christensen notes, “One of the more unique challenges in this field is one of bringing people from very different backgrounds to agree on a common outcome. I work on teams with scientists, communicators and technologists, and we all have different communities we’re trying to satisfy. For instance, communicators are generally trying to simplify animations so their learning goal is clear, but scientists will insist that we add text and annotations on top of the video to eliminate ambiguity and avoid misinterpretations. Often, the technologist will have to say we can’t zoom in or look at the data in a certain way because it will show the data boundaries or data resolution limits. Every shot is a negotiation, but in trying to compromise, we often push the boundaries of what has been done before, which is exciting.”

Netflix has no shortage of options when it comes to science fiction programming and experimental anthology series, but Love, Death + Robots is an especially beautiful love letter to science fiction’s chameleonic nature and endless versatility. The unpredictable animated anthology series combines sci-fi with comedy, horror, fantasy, mystery, and romance as it brings gripping genre literature to life through a modern lens. In doing so, Love, Death + Robots doesn’t just celebrate science fiction; it helps it evolve. Sci-fi is a revelatory storytelling genre that can open the audience’s mind and forever change their perception of reality. The best of it probes, inspires, and admonishes, which is exactly what Tim Miller (Deadpool) and Jennifer Yuh Nelson (Kung Fu Panda 2 and 3) strive for in Love, Death + Robots, now in its fourth season. Nothing is off-limits in the series, whether it’s a cat-fueled dystopia, gladiatorial combat atop dinosaurs, or a poet’s feud with Satan. The show aims to create the same level of jubilation in its viewers as those who discovered these short stories for the first time. Pretty much all the vignettes have been based on short stories that Tim’s read throughout his life,” explains Nelson, Love, Death + Robots’ supervising director. “We have hundreds of these stories just piled up.” There’s a true passion for the source material that helps Love, Death + Robots excel. This enormous collection of genre classics gets carefully selected as each new season takes shape.  “We try to curate the perfect mix. So we have a little something for everybody,” creator Miller elaborates. This has been one of the secrets to Love, Death + Robots’ success. Each collection of episodes is truly unique and feels like a pulpy paperback of short stories. In fact, Love, Death + Robots has even published collections of each season’s stories. “All the money goes to the authors,” Miller proudly adds. “We want people to read the stories! Forget about making them into movies.” Love, Death + Robots has resonated with science fiction fans who appreciate captivating and concise storytelling. That being said, Love, Death + Robots is also a visual extravaganza that pushes just as many boundaries in animation. Four seasons in, the series “Often, we choose the director and the animation studio according to their specialty,” Nelson explains as she continues to break down the meticulous nature of this process. “If we have two tentpole episodes that look a certain way, then we want to make sure that those episodes are going to look vastly different from each other.” For instance, Titmouse’s impressionistic work on Volume IV’s “How Zeke Got Religion” actively enhances the story. “You need to find their thing,” Nelson adds in reference to Love, Death + Robots’ roster of animation studios and what they each bring to the table. “It’s important for us, especially for this series, to make sure that we’re really showcasing the whole breadth of animation,” asserts Nelson. “Sometimes these directors are very much pioneers in what they do, and no one else is doing what they do. That’s why we end up working with them.” Photo-realistic 3D animation, stop-motion, traditional 2D visuals, and stop-motion are just some of the animation styles on display in Love, Death + Robots. The series has even increasingly dipped its toe into live-action stories that blur the lines between reality and animation. “Rarely do you see such a showcase of animation like this,” Nelson says. “This is a way to show new ideas, new looks, and new innovation by different directors and studios around the world.” Miller reiterates that it’s a deeply collaborative process where the animation studios have just as much agency as the storytellers.  “We push it in the initial direction, and then the directors come in and do their pitch.” The final product becomes a synthesis of ideas that are built upon ambition and taking risks. “We try to give them as much freedom as we can,” Miller emphasizes. This relationship has paid off well, earning the animated series 13 Primetime Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Short Form Animated Program and Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation. The series’ latest batch of episodes is likely to add to this already impressive collection of accolades. Love, Death + Robots’ 45 episodes provide a broad, brave mix of everything that science fiction and animation have to offer. However, the series continues to look forward and is determined to surpass these heights. “We’ve got a lot of stories,” boasts Miller. “I have the next season—seasons, actually—picked out.” And while there were previously spin-offs and off-shoots in consideration, Love, Death + Robots is the perfect incubator for these stories, whether they’re two minutes or 20 minutes. “The beauty of the show is that we’d never get some of these ideas made if we were asking to do a feature,” admits Miller.  Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Love, Death + Robots plays by its own rules and continues to redefine anthology storytelling. It’s still the only series where fans can alternate between a string puppet rock concert and Russian Civil War soldiers fighting ancient supernatural evils. “There’s still a lot of room to do new and innovative things that we haven’t done before,” Miller insists. “Although we always seem to end up with too many cat stories. I can’t really explain that.” Four volumes of Love, Death & Robots are available to stream on Netflix now.

Nature, Published online: 02 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01683-yThe poles hold 70% of Earth’s fresh water and are crucial to science; what’s unfolding there as the planet warms deserves greater attention.

Version 1.0.0 By Robert Jan van Pelt (Park Books, 2025) The largest artifact in the touring exhibition Auschwitz. Not Long Ago. Not Far Away., currently on display at the ROM in Toronto, is a wooden barracks building. It’s from the Auschwitz-Monowitz camp, a satellite to Auschwitz created to provide slave labour to the IG Farben corporation for the construction of a synthetic rubber factory.  The discovery of a sister building, back in 2012, led exhibition chief curator and architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt, University Professor at the Waterloo School of Architecture, on a research journey to write a comprehensive history of the barracks—temporary buildings that have not only housed prisoners, but also provided shelter for military servicemen and women, refugees, and natural disaster survivors. “Many people have experienced, for shorter or longer time periods, life in a barrack, and for all of them it represented life on the edge, for better or worse,” writes Van Pelt. Worm’s eye axonometric of Renkioi Hospital Barrack, a prefabricated hospital designed by Ismabard Kingdom Brunel for a site in Turkey, 1857. Van Pelt’s book criss-crosses with ease through architectural history, military history, and the history of medicine—all of which played crucial roles in the evolving development of this seemingly simple building type. The book is arranged in a dozen episodes, with the barrack at the centre of each, serving as an anchor point for unfolding the rich intellectual and historical context shaping the way these structures were developed and deployed. The book is richly illustrated with archival materials—a feat in itself, given that the documentation for temporary buildings, particularly before 1900, is scarce. These drawings, photos, and paintings are supplemented with 20 worm’s eye views of key buildings, carefully composed by a team of Waterloo architecture school students and alumni.  Thomas Thomaszoon, View of the headquarters of the Spanish in the Huis tea Kleef during the siege of Haarlem, 1572-73. Collection of Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem; courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt Like many vernacular buildings, temporary structures larger than a tent, designed to house soldiers in the field, have existed at least since Ancient Rome. One of the first visual accounts of barracks came centuries later, in the winter of 1572, when the Spanish laid siege to the Dutch city of Haarlem, and cartographer Thomas Thomaszoon sketched the position of dozens of Spain’s wood-and-straw structures outside the city. The siege was successful, but only a few years later, the Dutch Republic gained the upper hand. As part of the creation of a standing army, they began to develop more precise instructions for the layout of camps, including the construction of temporary barracks. Antoine-François Omet des Foucaux, Barrack constructed in Hendaye, France, 1793. From Jean-Charles Krafft, Plans, coupes et élévations de diverses productions de l’art de la charpente, 1805. Collection of Bilbliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. Courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt The Napoleonic army made use of barracks in both military camps and training camps; by the mid-1800s, the construction of various barrack types was detailed in field construction manuals issued to officers in many European armies. During the Crimean War (1853-56), over 3,500 prefabricated barracks were manufactured in a Gloucester factory, as a solution to the appalling conditions at the front. But when the structures arrived at port, British forces were not able to unload and erect them—the materials for a single building weighed more than two tons, and each would require 60 horses (or 150 men) to transport to camp on the muddy roads.  The US (Union) Army’s Lincoln Hospital, Washington, DC, 1865. Collection of Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt Prefabrication was also used, with somewhat more success, towards the end of the conflict to erect field hospitals designed by British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel with a priority on cross-ventilation to limit the spread of disease. Low mortality rates from similar structures led to a continued preference for “barrack hospitals” based on groupings of low-slung, well-ventilated pavilions, rather than conceived as single grand structures. The model was further refined with the addition of primitive underfloor heating and ridge ventilation by former surgeon William A. Hammond for the Union Army during the American Civil War (1861-65).  Barrack hospitals were constructed for civilian use, as well. Following the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71), such designs were built to house patients with infectious diseases in Berlin and proposed as a means to bring professional medical care to Germany’s rural areas. A barracks-inspired hospital was built in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 1889, and continues to be operational.  If the barrack as an accommodation for the sick is a progressive tale, the 19th-century history of the barrack is equally checkered by the building type’s use for prisoner accommodation, including in the penal colonies of Australia and French Guiana. In North America, barracks were used in an internment camp for Native American Dakotas, and Civil War-era Union barracks at Camp Douglas were used to house Confederate prisoners. The oldest preserved barrack in the world may be in Canada, at Grosse Isle national park. Here, barrack-style quarantine sheds were used to detain thousands of Irish immigrant families during the typhoid fever epidemic of 1846-47, and their damp, fetid conditions contributed to many deaths—an episode Van Pelt describes as a “blot on the national consciousness of Canada.” A single Doecker Hut contains an operation room, pharmacy and hospital management office. The prefabricated, portable hospitals were developed in 1885, and used around the world, including in the First World War. In America, they were marketed for managing epidemics in the wake of the 1892 typhus fever outbreak in New York. Courtesy Berlin State Library and Robert Jan van Pelt   At the turn of the 19th century, the prefabricated portable barrack came to the fore with the manufacturing of the Doecker barracks, by Christoph & Unmack, a firm based in Copenhagen and Germany. Developed by a former military officer-turned-tentmaker, the technically sophisticated model used large rectangular frames that could be clipped together, and covered with “felt-cardboard”—dense felt pressed onto canvas and impregnated with linseed oil. The self-supporting structures proved easy to set up, dismount, and transport, making them suitable for both military applications—and, with little modification, for humanitarian aid. The Red Cross deployed Doecker barracks for use as field hospitals in Manchuria and Yokohama during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05).  The Barrack, 1572-1914 wraps up in in the early 20th century, but with the note that in the ensuing decades until 1945, millions of barracks were produced by many of the world’s major nations—and that most of these were erected in barbed-wire-ringed compounds. “This is the period in which tens if not hundreds of millions of people, many of whom were civilians, were forced to live in barracks, as refugees, as expellees, as civilian internees, as forced laborers, as prisoners or war, as concentration camp prisoners, and as people made homeless by the destruction wrought by war,” writes Van Pelt. Up until 1914, he notes, this building type largely carried a sense of achievement—an image that would change sharply with the Age of the Camps. But although a WWII barrack was responsible for instigating Van Pelt’s initial investigation, that time period will need to await a second volume on this simple building type with a rich, complex, and complicated history.   As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Book Review: The Barrack, 1572-1914—Chapters in the History of Emergency Architecture appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Astronomers have spotted something strange and spectacular: a mysterious object that keeps emitting pulses every 44 minutes.In a press release from Australia's Curtin University, which was part of the international team that detected the object just 15,000 light-years away in our Milky Way galaxy, astronomers explained that the find was all the more stunning because the signal is coming in the form of both X-rays and radio waves.The object, which was named ASKAP J1832-0911 after Australia's ASKAP radio telescope that was used to detect it, was discovered emitting two-minute-long pulses that would pause and then repeat 44 minutes later. As the Curtin press release explains, the researchers lucked out when they realized that NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory was observing the same part of the sky and detected the same repeating signal in X-ray form.This dual-natured pulse belongs to a newly-discovered class of space phenomena known as "long-period radio transients," or LPTs for short.Discovered in 2022 by the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research — which also sponsored this latest study — these mystery pulses have unknown origins and occur in fixed intervals of minutes or hours. They're considered by astronomers to be remarkably slow as compared to the signals emitted by pulsars, those rapidly-rotating stars that send out similar bursts every few milliseconds when their poles point in Earth's direction.In the years since they were first discovered, astronomers around the world have only detected some 10 other LPTs — but before now, none have been run through X-ray telescopes as well.According to Ziteng "Andy" Wang, an ICRAR-affiliated Curtin astronomer and the lead author a paper about the finding that was just published in the journal Nature, discovering the dual nature of LPTs in such a coincidental manner "felt like finding a needle in a haystack.""The ASKAP radio telescope has a wide field view of the night sky, while Chandra observes only a fraction of it," Wang explained in the Curtin press release. "So, it was fortunate that Chandra observed the same area of the night sky at the same time."Because LPTs are such a new phenomenon to astronomers, they can't say for sure what causes them.When the first of them were discovered, astronomers posited that they could be coming from magnetars, a type of neutron star with extremely strong magnetic fields that also emit radio pulses at faster intervals, leading to the ICRAR team positing that they may have an "ultra-long-period magnetar" on their hands.While the magnetar theory appears to have been scrapped, the astronomers behind this update in LPT knowledge are hopeful that it will help them figure out what these strange, slow pulses are about."This object is unlike anything we have seen before," said Wang.Share This Article

Frankenstein, the post-Enlightenment novel written by a teenage girl that invented modern science fiction, has long been Guillermo del Toro’s white whale. The Mexican filmmaker has eyed adapting Mary Shelley’s story of a modern day Prometheus since the 1990s. And now it’s almost here. It’s a good feeling for the filmmaker and his admirers… but it also an opportunity of mounting excitement for fans of Shelley, too, since so much of her 1818 masterpiece remains mostly associated with the page in spite of the countless film adaptations based on the story of a man and his monster. And as judged by the first remarkable teaser trailer of Frankenstein introduced by del Toro and stars Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth at Netflix’s Tudum event Saturday night, it’s safe to stay that del Toro is pulling from Shelley directly… including a wrap-around story of hers that is seldom ever attempted on the screen. “What manner of creature is that?” a shaken voice whispers in the new Frankenstein trailer. “What manner of devil made him?” We never exactly see what countenance could earn the dehumanizing term “creature” in the trailer, but we feel his presence. He is a silhouette, a shadow—a vengeful wraith—walking across a sheet of ice with the sunset to his back. And he is approaching what is demonstrably a half-mad, frostbitten Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), who can only say in his frozen delirium “I did.” Victor is the devil who made that. For fans of Shelley’s novel, or just those with a good memory of Kenneth Branagh’s now mostly forgotten 1994 adaptation of the book, this framing device should send a chill of anticipation through the spine as giddy as any more familiar promises of gods and monsters. That’s because del Toro is adapting the cruel framing device Shelley used to introduce both Victor and the creature he pursues. Indeed, most of Frankenstein on the page is told in flashback and relayed by our protagonist Victor as a kind of last rites confession as he dies from fever and starvation after years and years of chasing his creation north. Always north. Whereas most of the novel takes place actually at the end of the Enlightenment era of the 19th century—the glory days of Mary’s famous philosophical and activist parents—the only “modern” part of the story is to compare the zeal for discovery in Victor with what was only a dawning fascination in the 19th century with discovering the North Pole (a feat that wouldn’t actually be accomplished until the early 20th century). In the book, Victor’s tale of obsession for greatness causes a captain who has led his men to becoming stuck in the Arctic ice to reflect on the potentially lethal consequences of his ambitions—especially after he meets the Monster who later verifies Victor’s story by mourning over the scientist’s body. The framing device is fascinating because of where it places the story in history, but also because it elevates the tragedy of the so-called Monster and his Creator. Who was really hunting who at the end of the world in the North Pole, and who is truly the monster? The Creature did terrible things, but how much of that is Victor’s fault for abandoning his progeny to a lifetime of loneliness hatred, and despair, including by that which gave him life? Both suffer tragic fates in the end in the cold. Unloved and unremembered, except by one sea captain no one will believe. While it remains to be seen if del Toro is doing a straight-ahead faithful adaptation of the novel—in fact we can assume he is not since Isaac’s Victor dresses more like a Victorian of the mid-19th century than a contemporary of Voltaire or Thomas Jefferson, and we also know that Burn Gorman appears in the movie as Fritz, a character created by Universal Pictures in the iconic 1931 film adaptation starring Boris Karloff—it is fascinating to see the master filmmaker returning to the source material. It also raises questions of just where he will go with Jacob Elordi’s intentionally obscured and hidden Monster. We know from the trailer’s end with the Monster attacking the crew of the North Pole-bound ship (a beat also, we might add, is not in the novel) that he has the power of speech. It will be curious indeed to learn if he proves to be a Milton-esque philosopher demon, which is also a largely ignored element of Shelley’s original story. Frankenstein is expected to premiere in November on Netflix.

Pros Excellent cooling performanceBrilliantly designed front fan bracketsBeautiful lighting effects in tested Ambience Pro RGB versionElaborate, web-accessible software controls for lighting, fans Cons Only minimal dust filtrationHigh price for our Ambience Pro test model Fractal Design Meshify 3 Specs 120mm or 140mm Fan Positions 6 120mm to 200mm Fans Included 3 Dimensions (HWD) 20.1 by 9.1 by 17.2 inches Fan Controller Included? Front Panel Ports HD Audio Front Panel Ports USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A (2) Front Panel Ports USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C Included Fan Lighting Color Addressable RGB Internal 2.5-Inch Bays 6 Internal 3.5-Inch Bays 2 Internal Chassis Lighting Color None Maximum CPU Cooler Height 173 Maximum GPU Length 349 Motherboard Form Factors Supported ATX Motherboard Form Factors Supported MicroATX Motherboard Form Factors Supported Mini-ITX PCI Expansion Slot Positions 7 Power Supply Form Factor Supported ATX Power Supply Maximum Length 180 Power Supply Mounting Location Bottom Side Window(s)? Yes (Tempered Glass) Weight 20.2 All Specs Fractal Design boosts its latest Meshify PC case with a trio of 140mm ARGB fans behind its now-iconic “crumpled mesh” front face. Starting at a mid-market $139.99 for its base model, the Meshify 3 also comes in upgraded versions with nifty extras that creep up the price. These include items like ARGB fan trim, ARGB side panel lighting, an ARGB strip surrounding the face panel, and even an ARGB controller that connects to the web. Taken together, all that can bump the price as high as the $219.99 MSRP for the deluxe, spectacular Ambience Pro RGB version of the case we tested. Whatever the feature mix you opt for, the case’s robust cooling performance shines. At the high end of the range, though, factor in the case’s biggest shortfall—its lack of inlet-air dust filtration—given what competitors deliver in $200-plus cases. Our current ATX tower favorite, the NZXT H7 Flow, isn't much better equipped with filters and isn't as striking as the Ambience Pro case in all its lit glory, but it costs much less.Design: A Crumpled ClassicPC-case feature trends have changed a bit in the eight years that Fractal Design has been putting its signature crumpled-mesh faces on classic mid-tower cases. (The aesthetic crumpling is easier to see in photos of the shinier black finish, such as the Meshify 2 we reviewed in 2021.) This latest version adds an air deflector at the front of the power supply shroud to force a bit more airflow past your hot graphics card. This Ambience Pro RGB variant’s feature set, as noted, has a USB-based ARGB controller, as well as lighting around the front face, along the bottom of the left side panel’s window, and on the three fans. Buyers willing to forgo most of the lit-up bling can get the basic “RGB” version with just the fan lighting for $159.99, and those willing to give up even that helping of ARGB can get the base “TG” version for $139.99. Our sample was in white; all three models are also available in black, and buyers who yearn for further simplification will find an additional “Solid” variant sold exclusively in black, with a painted steel panel on the left side in place of the window.Fractal Design has merged the headphone and microphone jacks of previous versions into a single four-pole connector on the Meshify 3. This connector functions as a normal headphone jack when one is plugged in; the extra pole serves the monaural microphone of a combined headset plug. Fractal also ditched the reset button of previous cases, but kept the twin USB 3 Type-A and a single Type-C port. And, this time around, the lighted power-on indicator ring that surrounds the power button is ARGB.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Though the mesh that covers the face and top panel could potentially filter out some inbound dust, the only part of the Meshify 3 that’s explicitly designed as a dust trap is under the power supply’s air inlet. Sliding out from the case’s side, it’s partially disguised as a portion of the rear case foot.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The Meshify 3’s back panel features a pattern of vent slots spaced to allow a fan to be screwed directly into the slots. Also back here are surface-mounted PCI Express expansion-card slots with replaceable covers, a plastic screw-tab cover with a built-in push tab at the bottom to ease its removal, and a removable power supply bracket that’s secured with two large knurled screws. Power supply insertion is through the case’s rear panel; the design lacks the space to slide in the power supply from the side.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Both side panels are secured at the top with snaps, and Fractal Design added a pair of tabs to make that task a little easier. Those tabs also have screw holes, enabling you to further secure your side panels against accidental removal.A nylon pull tab at the center of the top panel’s back edge serves a similar function. To release that panel and lift it off, you must first slide it back a quarter inch or so.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The front ARGB fans have 140mm frames, but there’s too little space behind them to mount a 420mm-format radiator vertically. That’s because radiator end caps tend to extend the total size by around 40mm (give or take 6mm).(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)On the other hand, those really motivated to place a radiator behind the front panel’s fans will find that a 360mm-format unit will work, but only by removing the 140mm fans and flipping the fan-mount brackets over. (They are visible in the image below.) Fractal Design’s brilliance shines through with these very basic sheet-metal brackets that flip to support either 120mm or 140mm fans without hindering airflow.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The top panel is fully removable to ease radiator installation and removal, but it does not benefit from the front panel’s design wizardry. While its straight-edged brackets will cover a portion of the fan’s blades when fans are mounted directly on them, its 330mm-plus of length is sufficient to support every 280mm-format radiator we can think of.Also, notice the removable cable shroud running up and down the case near the front. It is adjustable to fit motherboards up to 10.9 inches deep. That is less than the 13-inch max depth of Extended ATX, but it’s still sufficient to fit the slightly oversized enthusiast-class motherboard models that sometimes still get called EATX.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The lower front fan’s air deflector is removable and sits far enough above the case’s floor to be used in conjunction with a pair of 2.5-inch drive bays hidden beneath it. (We don’t even want to think about how we’d manage the cables in that configuration, however.)We removed the cable shroud for a clearer shot of this area. Keen observers might note the mounting slot for its lower edge at the top of the photo.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Two drive trays, three push-in cable clips, and the ARGB controller are all found behind the motherboard tray. The card bracket’s removable covers and the removable power supply bracket are shown in the image below detached and in front of the case, and the photo also shows the gap beneath the removable front fan duct into which some builders may want to install a pair of 2.5-inch drives.Recommended by Our Editors(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)More drive storage is visible here on the back of the motherboard tray. Configured from the factory to hold two 3.5-inch drives, these brackets on the back of the motherboard tray can be repositioned to hold four 2.5-inch drives instead.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Held in place by a hook-and-loop Velcro-style strap, the included ARGB controller has USB and PWM input on the top, proprietary combination connectors on the side, and an old-fashioned SATA power connector on its bottom to power it up.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Note that Fractal designed special outer shells on the proprietary ARGB/PWM combo connectors. This design is to prevent them from being mistakenly connected to anything USB Type-C, from which they appear to borrow their form. As with several others, this photo again shows the 10mm gap between the bottom panel’s 2.5-inch drive mounts and the underside of the front fan’s air guide.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)As for the controller box itself, here’s a shot of the connectors that we couldn’t see in the ARGB controller’s previous photos, including the SATA power inlet.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Of the two output cables we did see, one is for the case's chain of fans, and the other is for this version of the case’s “Ambience Pro” lighting. Four telescoping contact pins allow the front panel’s portion to separate easily from the rest of that latter cable without an awkward tether.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Building With the Fractal Design Meshify 3: Perfect Parts PacksFractal's accessory kits are hard to top in terms of neatness and clear labeling. Start with the screws: The Meshify 3 includes 24 M3 mounting screws, nine #6-32 screws to attach the motherboard to case standoffs, four #6-32 screws with hex/Phillips combo heads for power supply installation, and eight #6-32 shoulder screws for mounting 3.5-inch drives on damping grommets. (Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)You also get eight damping grommets, four cable ties, and an extra motherboard standoff. (But no extra screw for it! Such is life.) Our case being the Ambience Pro RGB version, it also includes a breakout cable that goes from the case’s proprietary ARGB/PWM connector to a standard ARGB strip and a standard PWM fan, along with an extension cable for the proprietary connector.Connecting the case to our motherboard are a power-button lead, an HD Audio header cable for the headset combo jack, a 19-pin USB 3.x for the Type-A ports, and a Gen 2x2 Type-E internal cable for the single Type-C external port. The case’s RGB controller also connects to one our motherboard’s USB 2.0 breakout headers and one of its PWM fan headers.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The white version of the Meshify 3 includes chrome hardware, but since our standard Asus ATX test motherboard is black, I flexed my design chops and used black screws to attach it. I can also divulge that I initially forgot to reinstall the cable shroud, which required me later in the build to remove the graphics card, install the shroud, and reinstall the card. Oops!(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The RGB controller uses a web interface to select its various lighting and fan modes, rather than forcing users to install software, and it stores those settings on the controller rather than leaving components in the OS. You can dictate a "startup" lighting effect separately from the regular run of lighting that the case cycles through. Using it allowed us to switch from the case’s soft blue default to something a little more, shall we say, festive.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The light controller’s “Sunset” mode looked like a softer variation of our CPU cooler’s Rainbow mode in this test. Nice.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Testing the Fractal Design Meshify 3: Cool It, ManToday’s build leverages the ATX hardware from our most recent case evaluation platform, including its full-sized Cooler Master GX III Gold 850W power supply and mid-size Corsair iCue H100i RGB Pro XT CPU cooler.Apparently, that little scoop that pushes air upward from the lower of the three front fans does have some positive effect on overall case temperature. Our CPU, motherboard (voltage-regulator), and GPU numbers all show slightly lower temperatures than its five most closely-matched recently reviewed rivals. (These include the Corsair Frame 4000D, the SilverStone Fara 514X, and the MSI Velox 300R.)And just in case you thought that Fractal Design might have gotten its high score by overspeeding its fans a bit…it didn’t. Fan noise is tied for second place in this test group, behind the Super Flower Zillion Direct.The biggest nit we can pick is that some of the Meshify 3’s airflow enhancement might be due to its lack of flow-restricting dust filters.

In the Northern Hemisphere during the spring, the bright star Regulus is easy to spot above the eastern horizon. The alpha star of the constellation Leo, Regulus is the spiky star centered in this telescopic field of view. Regulus is a hot, rapidly spinning star that is known to be part of a multiple star system.   CREDIT: Markus Horn Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. June 1Crescent Moon Visible Between Mars and RegulusJune 11Full Strawberry MoonMid JuneMercury Shows Off June 16-18The Red Planet Meets the Blue Heart of Leo June 20Summer SolsticeJune 30International Asteroid Day While the relatively short nights of summer mean less dark skies for stargazing, this month should still provide plenty to occupy those of us given to looking to the sky. June will feature several opportunities to see Mars and the moon in close proximity to Regulus, the iconic blue star(s) that shine from the heart of Leo, along with two weeks’ worth of excellent opportunities for observing Mercury. And did you know that June 30 is International Asteroid Day? June 1– Crescent Moon Visible Between Mars and Regulus The first evening of June will find the crescent moon sitting squarely between Mars and Regulus, the brightest member of the constellation Leo. Interesting fact: while it looks like a single object, the blue “star” we see as Regulus isn’t just one star. It’s actually four. The largest and brightest, Regulus A, is significantly hotter than our sun and way, way brighter than our sun, and is believed to be in a binary orbit with a much smaller object. This object is most likely a white dwarf, but it has never been observed directly. The other two stars–Regulus B and C–are also dwarf stars, and are also locked in a binary orbit. Anyway, keep Regulus in mind, because we’ll be returning to it later in the month. June 11– Full Strawberry Moon This month, the moon will reach peak illumination in the early hours of June 11. If you’re on EDT, the full moon will be at 3:44 a.m. This month’s moon is called the Strawberry Moon, and of all the lovely names for the full moon, June’s might just be the prettiest. The name refers to the berries that ripen as the summer solstice approaches, not the color of the moon itself, which will remain resolutely silver. Several Native American languages use this term, including Ojibwe, Oneida, and the Mahican dialect of the Stockbridge-Munsee band of Wisconsin. Other languages have similarly poetic names: in the Catawba language it’s the “River Moon” and in Cherokee it’s “They Are Arriving/Plants in Garden are Sprouting Month”, while in Seneca and Tunica it’s simply the “Summer Moon.” Mid-June– Mercury Shows Off Our solar system’s innermost planet can be difficult to observe—it’s small, dim, and a lot of the time, it simply gets lost in the glare of the sun. However, this month marks one of the regular periods when Mercury appears far enough removed from the sun to be visible to the naked eye. Throughout June, Mercury will approach its maximum eastern elongation,the point at which it appears furthest east of the sun. Unfortunately, its magnitude—i.e. its apparent brightness—will decline over the course of the month, and by the time it hits maximum elongation in early July, it’ll be dim enough that you might struggle to spot it without the aid of a telescope or some binoculars. This means that mid-June will offer the best balance of elongation and magnitude. As per the ever indispensable Farmer’s Almanac, Mercury should be visible between 9:00 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. local time, low in the sky to the west-northwest. On June 26, it’ll peek out from slightly below and to the left of the crescent moon.  [ Related: Mercury stuns in incredibly detailed new images. ] June 16-18– The Red Planet Meets the Blue Heart of Leo So, another thing about Regulus: it sits close to the plane of the solar system, which means that it is often seen in close proximity to the moon and the planets. This month brings one such occasion: for the nights of June 16, 17, and 18, Regulus will appear right next to Mars. The proximity of the Red Planet and the blazing blue heart of the constellation Leo should make for a pretty spectacular celestial juxtaposition. June 20– The Summer Solstice In the Northern Hemisphere, June 20 is the day on which the sun is highest in the sky, aka the summer solstice! This is the day on which the North Pole is tilted most directly toward the sun, bringing 24-hour daylight to the Arctic Circle and the longest day of the year to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Summer is here, y’all! June 30– International Asteroid Day June 30 marks the anniversary of the Tunguska Event, a frankly terrifying asteroid strike that remains the largest asteroid impact event in recorded history. On June 30, 1908, an asteroid estimated to be  about 160 to 200 feet wide exploded several miles above the surface of a remote area of Siberia. The force of the detonation is estimated to be comparable to  between 3 and 50 megatons of TNT, and registered on seismographs around the world. For comparison, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 0.015 and 0.021 megatons, respectively.) The resultant shockwave flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 830 square miles and broke windows hundreds of miles away. In 2014, a group of scientists proposed that June 30 be designated International Asteroid Day. The UN adopted the idea two years later. The day recognizes the potentially calamitous effect of asteroid impacts—what might have happened had the Tunguska asteroid hit a city instead of a barren part of Siberia doesn’t really bear thinking about—and to raise awareness about the importance of asteroid-tracking endeavors. Anyway, hopefully June’s stargazing endeavors won’t reveal any terrifying asteroids hurtling toward us. Whatever you’re setting your sights on, though, you’ll get the best experience if you get away from any sources of light pollution—and you make sure to check out our stargazing tips before you head off into the darkness. Until next month!