News
US military uses genetic engineering to develop “living tripwires” for submarines
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is investing $45 million dollars in a tri-service effort that focuses on synthetic biology (SynBio) for use in military technologies. This interdisciplinary scientific field primarily involves altering the genetic makeup of organisms to achieve specific behavior, and the military wants in on its potential applications. By uniting SynBio experts within the US Air Force, Army, and Navy, DoD officials hope to develop serious capabilities for use throughout the military’s branches.
The long form name of this project is the Applied Research for the Advancement of Science and Technology Priorities Program on Synthetic Biology for Military Environments, and the mission is obvious from its title alone. While still in the early research stages, engineering organisms could provide numerous tools with direct defense applications.
For example, organisms engineered to change their colors based on their environment could be used as living camouflage, and medications infused with protective microbes could help service member survival in tough conditions. However, it’s perhaps the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington DC that may hold the relevant interest in developing SynBio capabilities due to the marine environment potentials it holds.
Above the water, engineered self-repairing organisms could spell out self-healing paint for ships and aircraft carriers, cutting billions from the US Navy’s fleet maintenance costs. Even more important for defense needs, though, are the modified organisms that could help the branch’s deep water operations, i.e., submarines. By modifying the environmental response of naturally present organisms, naval defense could have a new type of radar at their disposal.
An abundant seawater-native bacteria with “clinging” properties called Marinobacter is a prime candidate for the DoD’s purposes. Specifically, the organism could be genetically engineered to react to certain types of molecules that aren’t naturally occurring in the ocean, such as diesel fuel or human DNA, and then spread into targeted environments for monitoring. This reaction could perhaps be the release of an electron, thus creating an electrical signal which nearby drones could pick up and transmit where necessary. The ability to detect non-friendly submarines is the key capability the researchers are aiming to achieve, the bacteria acting as “living tripwires.”
The field of synthetic biology is not new in the civilian world. In fact, consumer products currently exist based on it, such as bio fuels, soaps, cleaners, food additives, and a variety of industrial and manufacturing products. One of the challenges of bringing this type of technology to the field for military use is making the modified organisms tough enough to endure the environments needed.
“If you want to move a biological bio-based sensor to the field you try to ruggedize those organisms. You try to protect them…[and]…increase their longevity in these harsh environments,” explained Dimitra Stratis-Cullum, the lead of U.S. Army Research Laboratory biomaterials team, in a recent forum hosted by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
The current genetic research being conducted in SynBio has demonstrated that the genes of E. coli bacteria can be manipulated to express properties relevant to the larger goal of underwater sensing. However, the significant differences between the E. Coli and the types of organisms natural to deep water environments, such as Marinobacter, can be compared to the differences between mice and humans.
The initial point really is to either prove that the desired outcome is possible or collect data to assist in that effort. In other words, there’s still a lot of work to be done, but making the effort a priority, such as what the Navy’s done with its “Task Force Ocean” mission aimed at strengthening partnerships within academia and the private sector regarding Navy-relevant ocean science, is a focused step in the right direction for the military to achieve its goals in SynBio.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
