News
Mars travelers can use ‘Star Trek’ Tricorder-like features using smartphone biotech: study
Plans to take humans to the Moon and Mars come with numerous challenges, and the health of space travelers is no exception. One of the ways any ill-effects can be prevented or mitigated is by detecting relevant changes in the body and the body’s surroundings, something that biosensor technology is specifically designed to address on Earth. However, the small size and weight requirements for tech used in the limited habitats of astronauts has impeded its development to date.
A recent study of existing smartphone-based biosensors by scientists from Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) in the UK identified several candidates under current use or development that could be also used in a space or Martian environment. When combined, the technology could provide functionality reminiscent of the “Tricorder” devices used for medical assessments in the Star Trek television and movie franchises, providing on-site information about the health of human space travelers and biological risks present in their habitats.
Biosensors focus on studying biomarkers, i.e., the body’s response to environmental conditions. For example, changes in blood composition, elevations of certain molecules in urine, heart rate increases or decreases, and so forth, are all considered biomarkers. Health and fitness apps tracking general health biomarkers have become common in the marketplace with brands like FitBit leading the charge for overall wellness sensing by tracking sleep patterns, heart rate, and activity levels using wearable biosensors. Astronauts and other future space travelers could likely use this kind of tech for basic health monitoring, but there are other challenges that need to be addressed in a compact way.
The projected human health needs during spaceflight have been detailed by NASA on its Human Research Program website, more specifically so in its web-based Human Research Roadmap (HRR) where the agency has its scientific data published for public review. Several hazards of human spaceflight are identified, such as environmental and mental health concerns, and the QUB scientists used that information to organize their study. Their research produced a 20-page document reviewing the specific inner workings of the relevant devices found in their searches, complete with tables summarizing each device’s methods and suitability for use in space missions. Here are some of the highlights.
Risks in the Spacecraft Environment
During spaceflight, the environment is a closed system that has a two-fold effect: One, the immune system has been shown to decrease its functionality in long-duration missions, specifically by lowering white blood cell counts, and two, the weightless and non-competitive environment make it easier for microbes to transfer between humans and their growth rates increase. In one space shuttle era study, the number of microbial cells in the vehicle able to reproduce increased by 300% within 12 days of being in orbit. Also, certain herpes viruses, such as those responsible for chickenpox and mononucleosis, have been reactivated under microgravity, although the astronauts typically didn’t show symptoms despite the presence of active viral shedding (the virus had surfaced and was able to spread).
Frequent monitoring of the spacecraft environment and the crew’s biomarkers is the best way to mitigate these challenges, and NASA is addressing these issues to an extent with traditional instruments and equipment to collect data, although often times the data cannot be processed until the experiments are returned to Earth. An attempt has also been made to rapidly quantify microorganisms aboard the International Space Station (ISS) via a handheld device called the Lab-on-a-Chip Application Development-Portable Test System (LOCAD-PTS). However, this device cannot distinguish between microorganism species yet, meaning it can’t tell the difference between pathogens and harmless species. The QUB study found several existing smartphone-based technologies generally developed for use in remote medical care facilities that could achieve better identification results.
One of the devices described was a spectrometer (used to identify substances based on the light frequency emitted) which used the smartphone’s flashlight and camera to generate data that was at least as accurate as traditional instruments. Another was able to identify concentrations of an artificial growth hormone injected into cows called recominant bovine somatrotropin (rBST) in test samples, and other systems were able to accurately detect cyphilis and HIV as well as the zika, chikungunya, and dengue viruses. All of the devices used smartphone attachments, some of them with 3D-printed parts. Of course, the types of pathogens detected are not likely to be common in a closed space habitat, but the technology driving them could be modified to meet specific detection needs.
The Stress of Spaceflight
A group of people crammed together in a small space for long periods of time will be impacted by the situation despite any amount of careful selection or training due to the isolation and confinement. Declines in mood, cognition, morale, or interpersonal interaction can impact team functioning or transition into a sleep disorder. On Earth, these stress responses may seem common, or perhaps an expected part of being human, but missions in deep space and on Mars will be demanding and need fully alert, well-communicating teams to succeed. NASA already uses devices to monitor these risks while also addressing the stress factor by managing habitat lighting, crew movement and sleep amounts, and recommending astronauts keep journals to vent as needed. However, an all-encompassing tool may be needed for longer-duration space travels.
As recognized by the QUB study, several “mindfulness” and self-help apps already exist in the market and could be utilized to address the stress factor in future astronauts when combined with general health monitors. For example, the popular FitBit app and similar products collect data on sleep patterns, activity levels, and heart rates which could potentially be linked to other mental health apps that could recommend self-help programs using algorithms. The more recent “BeWell” app monitors physical activity, sleep patterns, and social interactions to analyze stress levels and recommend self-help treatments. Other apps use voice patterns and general phone communication data to assess stress levels such as “StressSense” and “MoodSense”.
Advances in smartphone technology such as high resolution cameras, microphones, fast processing speed, wireless connectivity, and the ability to attach external devices provide tools that can be used for an expanding number of “portable lab” type functionalities. Unfortunately, though, despite the possibilities that these biosensors could mean for human spaceflight needs, there are notable limitations that would need to be overcome in some of the devices. In particular, any device utilizing antibodies or enzymes in its testing would risk the stability of its instruments thanks to radiation from galactic cosmic rays and solar particle events. Biosensor electronics might also be damaged by these things as well. Development of new types of shielding may be necessary to ensure their functionality outside of Earth and Earth orbit or, alternatively, synthetic biology could also be a source of testing elements genetically engineered to withstand the space and Martian environments.
The interest in smartphone-based solutions for space travelers has been garnering more attention over the years as tech-centric societies have moved in the “app” direction overall. NASA itself has hosted a “Space Apps Challenge” for the last 8 years, drawing thousands of participants to submit programs that interpret and visualize data for greater understanding of designated space and science topics. Some of the challenges could be directly relevant to the biosensor field. For example, in the 2018 event, contestants are asked to develop a sensor to be used by humans on Mars to observe and measure variables in their environments; in 2017, contestants created visualizations of potential radiation exposure during polar or near-polar flight.
While the QUB study implied that the combination of existing biosensor technology could be equivalent to a Tricorder, the direct development of such a device has been the subject of its own specific challenge. In 2012, the Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE competition was launched, asking competitors to develop a user-friendly device that could accurately diagnose 13 health conditions and capture 5 real-time health vital signs. The winner of the prize awarded in 2017 was Pennsylvania-based family team called Final Frontier Medical Devices, now Basil Leaf Technologies, for their DxtER device. According to their website, the sensors inside DxtER can be used independently, one of which is in a Phase 1 Clinical Trial. The second place winner of the competition used a smartphone app to connect its health testing modules and generate a diagnosis from the data acquired from the user.
The march continues to develop the technology humans will need to safely explore regions beyond Earth orbit. Space is hard, but it was hard before we went there the first time, and it was hard before we put humans on the moon. There may be plenty of challenges to overcome, but as the Queen’s University Belfast study demonstrates, we may already be solving them. It’s just a matter of realizing it and expanding on it.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
News
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s unsupervised robotaxi fleet quietly grew sevenfold in three weeks just before Cybercab Day arrives.
Tesla’s unsupervised Robotaxi fleet has grown far faster than the public numbers suggested, and the timing lines up with the company’s biggest autonomy showcase yet. According to data compiled by the crowdsourced Robotaxi Tracker, Tesla now has nearly 200 vehicles operating without a safety monitor across Austin, Dallas and Houston, yielding a roughly 7X increase in about three weeks.
The jump lands four days before this week’s Tesla Cybercab launch event in Austin, where the company plans to show off its purpose-built, two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in a live commercial setting for the first time. Stick with us on X and Facebook for live reporting from the event.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Tesla has spent the past year scaling Robotaxi in small, deliberate steps, first widening geofences, then extending operating hours, then quietly growing fleet size, usually with little advance notice. Ashok Elluswamy told investors on the Q2 earnings call that the program had logged more than 380,000 unsupervised miles with zero notable incidents, a safety record the company has leaned on to justify moving slowly. Critics have used the flip side of that caution, a fleet that appeared stuck around two dozen vehicles for months, as evidence that Tesla’s driverless ambitions were outrunning its actual deployment.
A fleet quietly scaling to nearly 200 vehicles right before Cybercab Day undercuts that argument without Tesla having to say anything about it directly. It also sets up the event to do double duty. Rather than simply introducing new hardware, Tesla can point to an operating base of unsupervised Model Ys already running at meaningful scale, then argue the Cybercab, which uses the same underlying Full Self-Driving stack according to earlier coverage of the fleet’s software upgrades, is a natural next steps. Tesla has separately been registering the two-seat Cybercabs with Texas regulators this week, with the count climbing from seven to 45 in a matter of days.
The two ramps, one in software-driven Model Y deployment and one in physical Cybercab registrations, are happening in parallel rather than in sequence. That suggests Tesla wants Thursday’s event to land as proof that the robotaxi business is already running at scale, not just a reveal of a new vehicle shape. Whether the unsupervised numbers hold up once Cybercabs start mixing into the same fleet is the detail worth watching once the event wraps.
Tesla is lowering the monthly price of its Cybertruck Windshield Protection Plan from $35 to $25. The new rate will apply to the first payment on or after October 1, 2026. Tesla has told subscribers that all other benefits stay the same.
The plan covers unlimited repairs for chips and minor cracks on the front windshield. It also includes one full replacement every 12 months at no extra charge. Additional replacements in the same year carry a $100 deductible. Service is performed with Tesla glass and camera calibration, which matters because Autopilot and Full Self-Driving rely on those lenses behind the windshield.
Looks like Tesla is decreasing the Cybertruck windshield protection plan price from $35 to $25
Awesome https://t.co/MRlTU1XTbf pic.twitter.com/PWkMZt1H7G
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 28, 2026
There is no long-term contract. Coverage applies only to the front glass and does not include collision, vandalism, or weather damage.
The Cybertruck’s large, complex windshield has been more expensive to replace than glass on Tesla’s cars, which is why the pickup started at a higher subscription price. The $10 monthly cut reduces the annual cost from $420 to $300. Tesla has not publicly explained the change. The timing coincides with a year of claims data after the plan was extended to the Cybertruck.
Tesla sells several related protection products as monthly subscriptions through the Tesla app. The Windshield Protection Plan is also offered on other models. Model 3 and Model Y currently cost $16 a month. Those passenger-car rates are unchanged in the latest Cybertruck notice.
The Wheel and Tire Protection Plan covers road-hazard damage such as potholes, nails, and debris. Repairs are unlimited. Each wheel or tire replacement appointment has a $25 deductible. Pricing varies by model and whether the vehicle is a Performance version. Tesla is raising some of those rates on the same October 1 date.
Reported examples include Model 3 Performance moving from $16 to $24 and Model Y Performance from $20 to $24. Cybertruck wheel-and-tire coverage has been listed at $20 a month for the standard configuration.
A separate Luxe Package bundles four years of windshield coverage, wheel-and-tire coverage, and recommended maintenance on certain new Model S, Model X, and Cyberbeast orders, although the Model S and X are now defunct.
Tesla also offers an Extended Service Agreement after the basic vehicle warranty ends. That product covers many Tesla-manufactured parts rather than glass or tires. Together, the plans give owners a menu of targeted, cancel-anytime coverage instead of relying only on auto insurance.
Elon Musk says SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
