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.
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
