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.
Tesla has spent years trying to engineer its way out of the automotive paint shop, one of the most expensive, space-consuming, and environmentally costly steps in vehicle manufacturing. With the Cybercab, Tesla confirmed on X this week that a new reaction injection molding process will embed color directly into the panel itself during production.
“Our new reaction injection molding (RIM) process shrinks Cybercab paint cycles from hours to minutes. This cuts those parts’ manufacturing and supply chain emissions by 35% and eliminating 100% of paint volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in traditional paint methods.” noted Tesla.
While the RIM process isn’t necessarily new and has existed since the 1960s, what makes Tesla’s application notable is how it is being used specifically for exterior body panels that traditionally required a separate paint process after forming.
Tesla’s RIM approach integrates the color directly into the panel material during the molding process itself. The pigment is part of the polymer mix injected into the mold, meaning the panel comes out of the mold already colored, with no separate paint application required. The clear coat or protective layer can be applied at the mold stage or through a much faster post-process than traditional multi-stage painting. Tesla claims this compresses what was a multi-hour paint cycle into minutes per panel.
Tesla’s obsession with killing the paint shop is one of the most consistent threads running through the company’s manufacturing philosophy going back years. As far back as 2018, Musk was trimming paint color options to simplify production, tweeting at the time: “Moving 2 of 7 Tesla colors off menu on Wednesday to simplify manufacturing.” Two years later, in a 2020 Automotive News interview, Musk laid out his broader vision, saying he believed Tesla factories could one day be 1,000 times more efficient than conventional plants, and pointing to the paint shop as one of the biggest sources of waste, cost, and complexity. The Cybertruck was the most extreme expression of that thinking. Tesla chose an unpainted stainless steel exterior partly because it would eliminate the need for a $200 million paint facility at Gigafactory Texas. The stainless approach proved harder and more expensive than anticipated, but the underlying ambition never changed. The Cybercab is what happens when that same ambition meets a manufacturing process that delivers on it.
Lifestyle
Tesla app update makes Robotaxi ownership make a lot more sense
Tesla’s app now shows a live indicator when your car is actively driving itself.
A recent Tesla app update, released last week (4.58.5), gives visibility on whether a vehicle is navigating in its semi-autonomous mode or being drive by a human driver. The updated app now displays a live “Self-Driving” indicator in bright blue text directly beneath the vehicle’s speed readout whenever Full Self-Driving is actively engaged, along with the signature glowing blue navigation path that FSD users see on the main touchscreen. It is a small visual update with meaningful implications for how Tesla owners monitor their vehicles remotely.
The feature was first spotted in the wild by X user Jordan Camina, who shared video of a Hardware 3 Model S displaying the new animation through the app while driving. That detail is significant because it confirms the update is not limited to newer HW4 vehicles. It works across hardware generations, and Tesla confirmed it will eventually support all vehicles regardless of chip platform once both the app and vehicle software are updated. The vehicle side requires software version 2026.20.6.1, which has reached nearly 40% of the fleet so far, as monitored by NotaTeslaApp.
The feature makes the most practical sense when viewed through the lens of Tesla’s expanding robotaxi operation. In a robotaxi context, the owner of a vehicle generating ride revenue has a direct financial and safety interest in knowing whether their car is operating under autonomous control at any given moment. The app’s new FSD indicator gives fleet owners exactly that visibility, the same way a logistics company monitors whether a delivery driver is following the planned route. It also carries implications for Tesla’s insurance model. Tesla’s own insurance product prices premiums in part based on FSD engagement rates, and real-time visibility into when FSD is active creates a feedback loop that could eventually tie directly into policy pricing. For individual owners who have opted their personal vehicles into the robotaxi network, the update effectively turns the Tesla app into a fleet management dashboard, one that tells you whether your car is earning money, whether it is driving itself to do it, and whether everything is operating the way it should from wherever you happen to be.
Tesla expands Robotaxi to Florida, marking its third state for autonomy
As Teslarati has reported, Tesla launched unsupervised robotaxi rides in Miami this summer, a milestone that makes a remote FSD status indicator significantly more practical than a cosmetic feature. When a vehicle is operating as a robotaxi without a driver present, the owner or fleet operator needs a reliable way to confirm autonomy is engaged. The app now provides exactly that.
As noted by NotATeslaApp, The update also arrived alongside a hint buried in the same app version that Tesla plans to use the cabin camera to verify driver identity before FSD can be activated. Pairing identity verification with a live autonomy status indicator points toward the infrastructure Tesla is building for a fleet of driverless vehicles that owners can monitor the way you would track a package delivery.
Elon Musk
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla
California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.
The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.
California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.
The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.
The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color
Tesla app update makes Robotaxi ownership make a lot more sense
