Connect with us

News

Drone successfully flies human organ transplant between hospitals

Published

on

For the first time, a human organ has been successfully transported between medical facilities by a drone. A team of scientists from the University of Maryland Baltimore used a research-qualified donor kidney as a test subject to shuffle back and forth on a remotely piloted hexacopter, testing the organ for changes throughout 14 flights. Its longest journey was 3 miles at a maximum speed of 40 mph, the duration and distance of which were suitable for demonstrating transportation between inner city hospitals.

Currently, organs have few options for transportation, and the process for moving them involves a network of couriers and commercial aircraft that are dependent on schedules and traffic patterns. When normal commercial schedules aren’t available, the cost of private charter transportation can be prohibitive. Even when cost isn’t a factor, the time involved in the process altogether can prevent a transplant from being completed as organs are very sensitive cargo.

A graphic of the transplant drone’s flight process. | Credit: University of Maryland Baltimore via IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine

To best ensure a successful transplant procedure, organs must be moved quickly between the donor and the recipient. The amount of time an organ can spend chilled after removal and when it’s warmed up and the blood supply restored, called cold ischemia time (CIT), is very limited. Some organs, such as the heart, only have as few as 4 hours available to be transported before they are no longer eligible for transplant. Up against airplane flight availability and traffic patterns, an improvement like what drone transportation could provide might have life saving implications.

Shortening CIT times with faster organ transportation could also expand the availability of organs across regions currently out of range. According to the Journal article detailing the results of the drone test, the national average CIT is 16-18 hours. With a fast enough drone, even a cross-country trip could be cut down to around 8 hours, potentially expanding the availability of organs such as the liver and pancreas to such a distance. Regional expansion would be especially helpful for harder to reach areas where CITs are routinely longer than 30 hours for kidneys, the recommended maximum CIT being about 24 hours.

The research scientists used a specially designed device for this experiment called a HOMAL (Human Organ Monitoring and Quality Assurance Apparatus for Long-Distance Travel) to measure temperature, barometric pressure, altitude, vibration, and location via GPS during the organ’s transportation. Once the project was complete, the kidney’s temperature and travel environment were shown to have remained stable. Further biopsies also did not reveal any flight-related impact on its structural integrity.

The drone used in this research was a commercially available DJI Matrice 600 Pro Hexacopter, the specifications of which include 6 vertically oriented motors, around 20 minutes of flight time, a maximum flight speed of 40 mph, and a payload capability of about 13 pounds. For long-distance organ transport, upgraded equipment would be necessary as well as revised regulations on drone activity. A mandatory line of sight is required for drone pilots under current laws, thus precluding any major travel distances. Also, as with most aircraft, drones would also be subject to weather constraints.

Despite the limitations of drone transportation, the team involved in this study remain optimistic as technological developments progress. The fastest drone on record can reach a speed of about 160 mph, and 22 pound payloads are already possible on commercially available craft. As these and other developments continue to expand and overcome other challenges, so could their potential use for medical transportation. As improvements also expand the regional reach of transplants to potential donor recipients, the medical benefits of the technology could prompt revision of current drone restrictions.

Advertisement
-
-

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.

The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.

SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.

Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.

There are plenty of ways the company can do this:

Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts

SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.

SpaceX is charging Anthropic massive money for its compute

Advertisement
-
-

High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity

The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.

Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.

Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.

High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online

GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.

Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications

Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.

These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.

Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages

SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.

Advertisement
-
-

Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.

SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y

Published

on

Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.

Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”

Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.

Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.

Advertisement
-
-

However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.

Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.

Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking

Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.

On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.

Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.

The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.

Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.

For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.

Advertisement
-
-
Continue Reading