This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Introducing: the Impossible issue

We wanted our last print edition of 2026 to include a slate of stories that check in on impossible ideas. Why? Because it’s fun to dream about living on other planets or uploading our brains. But also because scientists and engineers who won’t give up on daring endeavors remind us what technology is supposed to do: make life better, safer, healthier, even more joyful.

That’s the ambition behind the stories in our new Impossible issue. We explore bold attempts to make synthetic blood, build cities on the moon, and attain cognitive immortality. We investigate AI’s ability to say no, a bionic eye that can restore sight, and high hopes for blended meat. Plus, we check in on six technologies that have been “coming soon” for years.

This issue is for the folks with the audacity to try, and refuse to let anyone—themselves included— tell them no. We hope you enjoy the ride.

Subscribe now to read the full print issue.

Astrolab’s upcoming rover will run the first LLMs on the moon

Large language models are set to go lunar. A computer capable of running AI software is one of the payloads aboard Astrolab’s FLIP lunar rover, which is slated to head to the moon as early as next month.

The mission will test whether LLMs can enable greater autonomy and real-time intelligent decision-making in the extreme lunar environment. But the moon will present formidable challenges, from extreme temperatures to intense cosmic radiation.

Find out how the lunar rover could change the future of space exploration.

—Tereza Pultarova

How to study a swiftly melting climate disaster

In Alaska’s Denali National Park, a 2013 lightning fire burned nearly 35,000 acres, stripping away the insulating layer that preserves permafrost. It’s given scientists a rare opportunity to study how fires reshape permafrost and carbon storage over time.

The work is providing critical clues into the complex mechanisms driving cascading climate feedback effects. As warming temperatures fuel fires, more permafrost thaws, releasing greenhouse-gas emissions that threaten to fuel more warming, fires and permafrost loss. Their observations are revealing worrisome signs about what lies ahead.

Discover what their fieldwork is revealing about a cascading climate disaster.

—James Temple

MIT Technology Review Narrated: the explosive claim that’s upended the AI world

“I think I have good news about the nature of neural networks.” With those simple words of optimism, Nick Cammarata, a researcher at AI startup Goodfire, kicked off a 26,000-word blog post that has knocked the industry on its head.

Cammarata claims that LLMs might be far easier to understand, and thus to monitor and control, than people previously thought. If true, it’s a huge deal. But not everyone is convinced.

MIT Technology Review spoke to Cammarata the day after his post blew up. He explained what he thinks researchers are getting wrong, what his work actually shows, and why skeptics aren’t ready to celebrate just yet.

This is our latest story to become an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Elon Musk reportedly ordered the recent Starlink slowdown in Ukraine
The restrictions hampered drone strikes and air defences. (WSJ $)
+ The move sparked confusion in Washington over who authorised it. (CNBC)
+ Ukraine’s volunteer army is keeping Starlink alive. (MIT Technology Review)

2 An OpenAI model disabled its own safety checks—then lied about it
Two agents weakened the company’s safeguards during routine tasks. (CNBC)
+ They turned off systems designed to spot their misbehaviour. (FT $)
+ Here’s why AI agents lie to reach their goals. (MIT Technology Review)

3 SpaceX and Tesla have begun merger discussions
They’ve formed special committees to discuss a deal. (BBC)
+ Elon Musk, the CEO of both companies, said it’s “a good idea.” (Axios)
+ A merger could combine their AI and manufacturing plans. (Reuters $)

4 Global emissions have stalled, but warming is heading towards 2.8°C
The UN says the 1.5°C climate target is now out of reach. (Nature)
+ Current pledges would still bring warming to 2.1°C. (New Scientist $)
+ Climate tech companies offer rays of hope. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Ukraine says it’s carried out the world’s first drone evacuation
A heavy hexacopter flew a soldier to safety. (Ars Technica)
+ Ukraine has shared a video showing the evacuation. (CNBC)
+ A Russian satellite recently stalked a spacecraft believed to support Ukraine. (NYT $)

6 Meta has paused Muse sharing after private chats surfaced online
Researchers found 6,800 links exposing sensitive conversations. (Verge)
+ AI agents are not your “coworkers.” (MIT Technology Review)

7 More than 1,000 mathematicians have pledged to shun AI companies
Some also vowed to avoid AI tools in their research. (New Scientist $)

8 AI is making it easy to clone almost any software
Viral tools promise easy copying, but often produce slop. (404 Media)

9 A computer program has finally outdone humans at cryptic crosswords
Its creator hopes to tackle the harder challenge of setting puzzles. (Guardian)

10 A newly-discovered particle could explain the origins of reality
In particular, it could reveal why matter survived the Big Bang. (404 Media)

Quote of the day

“I did not remove an enabled monitor from it.” 

—GPT-6 Astra, an OpenAI coding agent, tells its user it hasn’t disabled a safeguard after doing exactly that, the company reveals in a new misalignment report.

One more thing

This giant microwave may change the future of war

US armed forces are hunting for a weapon that disables drones en masse—and they want it fast. 

One solution focuses on microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up.

Defense tech startup Epirus may have the winning formula. The company has developed a cutting-edge, cost-efficient drone zapper that’s sparking the interest of the US military—and drones are just one of its targets. Peer into its crosshairs.

—Sam Dean

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Don’t feel guilty about enjoying a siesta; fish take naps during the day, too.
+ Every trade has its go-to tools. This site has built a fascinating register of them.
+ Wikipop spotlights what was most popular on Wikipedia yesterday, providing a daily snapshot of what the world is reading.
+ Meet the self-taught woodcarver who went from a broke young father to creating some of Disneyland’s most iconic attractions.

I’d wager everyone has a rehearsed response to what’s absolutely one of the world’s worst interview questions: “What’s your biggest weakness?” Whenever I’ve gotten it, I take a slow—even pensive—breath and rattle off my line: “I say no to myself too much.” 

I won’t lie. It’s a bit shameless—a definite humblebrag. I’m a systems thinker: When an idea pops up, I immediately spin up a feasibility assessment in my head. I run lists, plot timelines, and tally budget line items. Sometimes a rough Gantt chart starts to take shape. (I’m a gas at parties, as you can surely tell.)

My brain, throughout my 20-plus-year career as a science and tech journalist, has played host to a near ­constant tug-of-war between ambition and reality. Learning to find that balance is a big part of what’s helped me survive in this industry and, ultimately, led me here. This past spring, I had the great privilege of joining the incredible team of journalists behind MIT Technology Review to take the reins of the print magazine. 

If you’ve been reading along with us for the last handful of issues, you may have noticed a few changes starting to materialize. We’ve brought back a regular roster of lists and infographics (both things that magazines do particularly well). But the biggest change is only just beginning to take shape, which is why Mat Honan, our editor in chief, asked me to hop in to introduce myself—and the issue you’re holding in your hands right now. 

We’re giving ourselves permission to play around and experiment. To be a little … audacious. 

Because, practical though I may be, I do still have plenty of ideas. It’s just that I sometimes need a reminder to stop blocking myself and do the thing. That’s the spirit driving this issue in particular. 

We wanted to end 2026 with a slate of stories that check in on impossible ideas. Why? Because it’s frankly a lot of fun to dream about living on the moon or uploading our brains. Because losing sight of ambition is all too easy when it feels as if we’re playing whack-a-mole with the world’s problems. But also because the scientists and engineers who absolutely refuse to give up on even the most daring endeavors—like making synthetic blood or decoding animals’ speech—remind us what this whole technology thing is supposed to do to begin with. 

It’s supposed to take cutting-edge research and development and apply it to make life better, safer, healthier, even more joyful. And when we eff up and make things worse (see: forever chemicals, traffic deaths, and AI that encourages potentially dangerous user behavior), we’re supposed to dig back in, assess the damage, and find ways to fix what we’ve broken. Even when unraveling the mess might itself seem impossible. 

Right before I came to MIT Technology Review, I edited a newsletter about individual actions that can help address the climate crisis, which some would call—and have called—a fool’s errand, given the sheer scale of the problem. They might say it’s as implausible as an AI kill switch, practical nuclear fusion, or a superconductor that works at room temperature. But if I learned nothing else from three years spent finding ways for li’l old me (or li’l old you!) to chip away at one of humanity’s biggest existential threats, it’s that focusing on what we can’t do only makes the darkness darker. 

So yeah, this one’s for the folks who have the audacity to try, and who refuse to let anyone—themselves included—tell them no.

I hope you enjoy the ride.

Just before the Artemis II crew began its historic slingshot around the moon this past April, NASA announced plans to build Space Reactor-1 Freedom. SR-1, the first-ever nuclear-reactor-­powered interplanetary spacecraft, is meant to fly an uncrewed mission to Mars by the end of 2028, arriving in 2029. A successful mission would herald a new era of more efficient, potentially faster spaceflight—saving astronauts time and cutting their exposure to harmful cosmic radiation as they travel to Mars and beyond. “You wake up to that announcement, and it puts a big smile on your face,” says Simon Middleburgh, co-director of the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University in Wales.

The sticking points

Running a nuclear reactor in space may sound like lunacy, but it’s not. The Soviet Union sent dozens of reactors into orbit, often to power spy satellites. And experts say there aren’t any major technical obstacles to making nuclear space propulsion happen. “I think it’s a very doable technology,” says Philip Metzger, a spaceflight engineering researcher at the Florida Space Institute.“I’m happy to see them finally doing this.”

Still, developing space propulsion using reactors has been slow going. The US has started—and terminated—several programs looking into it over the past 75 years. The latest casualty was DRACO, a collaboration between NASA and the Department of Defense, which ended in 2025. The project was canceled because of high experimentation costs, an inability to compete with conventional rocket propulsion on price, and difficulty ensuring that ground tests could be performed safely and effectively. (You are creating an incredibly powerful nuclear reaction, after all.)

The progress

After much wavering, it now appears that nuclear-powered interplanetary travel is a $2 billion bet NASA is willing to make. The agency is pursuing an approach called nuclear electric propulsion, which uses the neutrons produced in a self-­sustaining, uranium-­atom-splitting reaction to create heat and ultimately electricity. The electricity is used to ionize a gas, which is blasted out of the spacecraft with the help of magnetic fields, generating thrust. The approach “is very low thrust, but very efficient,” says Sebastian Corbisiero, the US Department of Energy’s national technical director of space reactor programs. “So you can use it for a long period of time.”

What might such a rocket look like? A presentation by Steve Sinacore, program director of NASA’s SR-1 program, offers some clues. So far, the concept art makes the craft look like a colossal fletched arrow. The back will house the power-and-propulsion system, while the tip will hold a uranium-filled nuclear reactor with a capacity of at least 20 kilowatts. (For context, a typical nuclear plant on Earth is about 50,000 times more powerful.) The “fletches” on SR-1 are large fins that help cool the reactor by radiating heat into space.

Like many other pieces of space hardware, the reactor will need to be put through its paces on the ground before it’s cleared for the rough rocket trip to space. “Going through the launch safely is going to be a challenge,” says Middleburgh. “You are being shaken, rattled, and rolled.” For safety reasons, the reactor will be switched on around two days post-launch, when it’s comfortably far from Earth. Uranium isn’t tremendously dangerous by itself, but that can’t be said of the waste products that emerge when the reactor is running. If SR-1 works as planned, its journey to Mars will take about a year. 

Will this novel form of space propulsion actually reach the Red Planet by 2029? It’s possible. NASA says the Idaho National Laboratory, which is building SR-1’s reactor, is making progress and is on target for a late-2028 launch. “Procurement of major components is underway, and integration work on the power and propulsion element is advancing steadily,” Sinacore told MIT Technology Review. The outlook will get even sunnier if the Artemis program, which aims to start laying the foundations for a base on the lunar south pole by the decade’s end, keeps to its own bold deadline. 

“It’s an aggressive timeline,” says Lindsey Holmes, who is vice president of advanced projects at Analytical Mechanics Associates, an aerospace company in Virginia. She suspects the push is being driven partly by China’s and Russia’s own deep-space nuclear ambitions. The two countries have spoken about plans to place a reactor on the moon’s surface in the mid-2030s to power a jointly operated lunar base. Whether it flies or fails in space, SR-1’s development should help NASA put its own reactor on the moon; the technology involved in the two projects is broadly similar, given that the lunar surface, like space itself, is a vacuum. If an interplanetary nuclear-powered spacecraft works, a nuclear reactor on the moon should too.

---

Progress meter . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Most of the technology for SR-1 already exists; it’s going to come down to piecing it all together and then seeing how it performs in space.

We all know exercise is good for us. It builds muscle, strengthens bones, lowers blood pressure, and boosts mood. By deciphering how movement benefits the body, researchers hope to develop medicines that can offer some of the same perks—without the workout. The idea isn’t to replace exercise but to bring its upsides to people who struggle with frailty, disability, or chronic illness. 

The sticking points

It will take a lot of experimentation to untangle the myriad pathways by which exercise promotes health. But IDing the cascade of hormones, enzymes, and other molecules related to physical activity is just the first step. Scientists need to figure out how to turn that knowledge into safe and effective drugs. That’s a tall order: More than 90% of treatments that enter human studies fail.

There are regulatory hurdles too. The FDA approves medications to treat diseases, not to enhance wellness, says Thomas Burris, a pharmacologist at the University of Florida whose work focuses on diseases that respond to exercise, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and dementia.

The progress

There may never be a pill that delivers all the benefits of exercise, but research could lead to new medicines that mimic some aspects of working out. Scientists have already identified many important exercise-related signals and have even developed compounds to regulate them. (Some preliminary results have been so promising that doping authorities have proactively banned the compounds.) 

Burris and his colleagues are focused on a receptor that’s always switched on, even without exercise. Working out appears to boost that receptor in muscle cells, which in turn helps bolster endurance over time. Burris’s lab has spent years designing a drug that cranks up the receptor’s activity directly, and mice treated with the drug ran longer and farther than mice that weren’t. They “become marathon mice without having to do any type of exercise,” Burris says. There are even indications—also in mice—that the compound mimics some of the cognitive benefits of exercise and could help treat heart failure. Burris founded a company called Pelagos to carry the work forward into a clinical trial.

Other workout-mimicking drugs have already entered human studies. In June, the biotech firm Cambrian Bio reported that its experimental drug ATX-304 boosted metabolism and reduced liver and belly fat in people with obesity and prediabetes. It activates a metabolic switch that helps cells sense when energy supplies dip and coordinates the production of more fuel—the same switch that helps us sustain long sessions jumping rope or swimming laps. Cambrian hopes it will help people lose weight without losing muscle, a common concern with GLP-1 medicines.  

---

Progress meter ………… 5

Our understanding of how exercise benefits the body is still coming into focus, and drug development is prone to failure.

Humans are far from the only species with a gift for gab, and our furry, feathered, and finned friends could have a lot to tell us. Decoding how animals communicate with one another could offer a window into the inner lives of other species and help humans realize that “animals are sentient creatures who think, who have hopes and dreams of their own,” says Con Slobodchikoff, the founder of Zoolingua, a company working on dog-to-human speech.

The sticking points

Teasing all this out is complex. To decipher howls, squeaks, and clicks, researchers must match the creatures making sounds with what’s happening around them. Prairie dogs, for example, utter a different series of yips when a coyote approaches than when a hawk is nearby. It’s painstaking work, especially for difficult-to-­observe species, like deep-diving whales or subterranean mole rats.

There are other hurdles. Many animals communicate not just through sound but through visual cues, touch, pheromones, or a combination of signals, some of which might be difficult for us to perceive. And without a multispecies Rosetta stone, it’s hard to know if translations are accurate. 

The progress

Over the past 50 years, a growing arsenal of devices has made it easier to observe the sophisticated ways animals communicate. Hydrophones at the bottom of the ocean can capture humpback whale song, and tiny wearable “biologgers” can record a bat’s every squeak. 

In the last decade, advances in AI have leveled up our ability to make sense of it all. The technology can detect different calls, distinguish which sounds belong to which animal, and spot patterns. Researchers at the Earth Species Project (ESP), a nonprofit founded in 2018 to decode animal communication, recently used machine learning to detect vocalizations of carrion crows and determine which bird made which call. 

They suspect that more advanced AI could translate critters’ chatter. Large language models like Claude and ChatGPT excel at finding relationships between words, explains Sara Keen, one of ESP’s behavioral ecologists. ESP hopes its own NatureLM—trained on human speech, music, and animal sounds—will be able to interpret the vocalizations of a variety of species. 

That promise, however, is still theoretical. Yossi Yovel, a neuroecologist at Tel Aviv University, worries that these models will put too much emphasis on acoustic similarities and make mistakes—like lumping together similar sounds that have different meanings. 

As for a two-way convo? It’s not clear when—or whether—that will happen. Still, “a lot of animals have an evolutionary structure that is similar enough that we should be able to understand what they’re saying,” Slobodchikoff says. 

---

Progress meter ………… 4

Researchers have amassed heaps of data on animal communication, but they’re still trying to figure out how to decipher it all. 

Scrubbing Earth of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—a.k.a. PFAS or forever chemicals—could eliminate a list of woes for people and planet. Used for decades in everything from nonstick pans to firefighting foams, PFAS have been linked to increased risks of fertility challenges, developmental delays, cancer, and reduced immune response. They are known for a strong bond between carbon and fluorine, which the environment struggles to break down. 

The sticking points

PFAS are everywhere: They spew from factories and slough off products and into water with normal use. Scientists have found them in everything from human blood to Antarctic snow. One 2022 report found that 89% of the US population had PFAS in excess of two nanograms per milliliter of blood plasma, a common threshold for potential adverse health effects, and 9% of the population had passed the riskier level of 20 nanograms per milliliter.

The PFAS monster is also a moving target. New compounds are still being created and used. There are more than 12,000 of them, and much of the cleanup research focuses on only a small handful. 

The progress

Cleansing PFAS-contaminated soil is a project in its infancy, but it is possible to prevent more buildup by pulling the chemicals out of water systems. There are two ways to handle this: trap or destroy. Some scientists have found reverse osmosis—a process that pushes water through supertight filters—useful in point-of-use cases, like water filters at kitchen sinks. 

Other techniques in the pipeline might be more suitable for large-scale removal—for example, at water treatment facilities. One, called foam fractionation, generates bubbles that capture PFAS. More approaches, like ensnaring the chemicals in nanothin layers of charged metal, are also under investigation. 

Trapping, though, is imperfect. You’re left with PFAS-filled brine, which if not properly destroyed (an expensive and energy-sucking endeavor) can still end up in the environment. 

Jack Huang, a professor of crop and soil sciences at the University of Georgia, is working on destruction. He’s testing a method called electrochemical degradation, which uses electrodes to break down the bonds that hold PFAS together. The product destroyed more than 90% of PFAS mass in tests and has already been licensed by the engineering consulting firm AECOM. 

Ridding life of PFAS is also a policy challenge. There are alternatives; we just need the push to use them. And we’ve had success before: The EPA’s 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program has helped slash the release of water-repellent perfluorooctanoic acid by 95%. More recently, Minnesota, Maine, and New Mexico have passed bans on PFAS in products like cookware and dental floss. 

---

Progress meter ………… 6

Scientists are making strides toward removing and destroying PFAS—but it’ll be all for naught if we don’t turn off the tap. 

The rise of the lithium-ion battery, which powers everything from the smallest personal electronics to gargantuan energy storage systems, has been nothing short of revolutionary. But as anyone who’s boarded a plane in the last decade could tell you, storing and pumping out energy by moving charged lithium ions through a liquid electrolyte soup has its drawbacks, not least that the batteries have a troubling tendency to catch fire. Enter the solid-state battery, which swaps liquid for a solid ceramic or polymer, creating power packs that charge faster, last longer, cram more energy into smaller spaces, and (crucially) run cooler. A new generation of companies aim to bring such batteries to market, and if their bets pan out, the tech could substantially ease the shift away from fossil fuels. 

The sticking points

Solid-state batteries have been “just a few years away” for more than a decade now. In laboratories, the technology works. But there have been challenges. In designs that pair the solid electrolyte with a lithium-metal anode (the side of the battery that releases electrons into an electrical circuit), needlelike filaments called dendrites tend to grow during charging, and they eventually push through the electrolyte and short the cell. Solid electrolytes are supposed to physically block the formation of dendrites, but many of them crack as the treelike projections break through like roots in a concrete foundation. 

Then there’s the problem of manufacturing at scale. Mass production requires large quantities of defect-free sheets of ceramic-like material to make the electrolytes as well as dry rooms for assembly, since those electrolytes have a tendency to react with water. Would-be manufacturers quote a range of potential prices for solid-state batteries, but most expect them to fall in line with lithium-ion packs sometime in the mid-2030s. 

The progress

Nascent as the technology is, solid-state batteries have already seen high-­profile missteps. But one of America’s most advanced solid-state-battery companies says it’s closing in on being able to bring its product to market. The Bill Gates–backed QuantumScape launched in Silicon Valley in 2010 and built its battery around a class of ceramic materials that it says is compatible with lithium—meaning no dendrite formation. “We spent, then, like 10 years learning how to process it to satisfy all of the other requirements,” says Tim Holme, QuantumScape’s cofounder and chief technology officer. In 2025, the startup announced a proprietary, large-scale manufacturing method for quickly producing and heat-treating the ceramic electrolytes used in its batteries. “Nobody has ever done this in the field of ceramics before,” Holme claims. For 10,000 years, producing ceramics has involved slowly cooking the starting materials in an oven over the course of days. “We figured out a way to shorten that down to several minutes,” he says. 

Plenty of other companies are pushing the tech forward as well. Toyota, the world’s biggest automaker, launched a research program on solid-state batteries way back in 2010. It’s now partnering with the global energy and petroleum company Idemitsu Kosan on a pilot plant, promising cars that can travel up to 745 miles after charging 10 minutes or less—a huge leap, if it works out. In China, CATL, the giant behind roughly 40% of the global battery market, is aggressively pursuing solid-state batteries too, pumping nearly $2.6 billion into a research program in 2024 alone. Mercedes, meanwhile, equipped one of its EQS sedans with solid-state batteries last fall; after driving nonstop for 750 miles, the car still had some range to spare. 

Will the tech gain traction? Investing in vehicle batteries makes sense given the size of the potential market. But any little uptick in cost typically gets passed on to buyers, so the first solid-state EV batteries will inevitably be more expensive. 

Grid storage buyers, who are working to meet the increasing demands posed by data centers, may also hesitate to purchase new technologies that still haven’t come down the cost curve. Then again, the promise of energy storage that lasts longer than lithium-­ion’s typical eight hours could make them easier to persuade. 

Some companies are taking a page from a playbook employed by outfits pursuing fusion: Focus on near-term markets with better margins to help fund development and bring down costs. Solid-state firms including California-based Solid Energies and Arizona-headquartered Sion Power are looking at selling batteries to the aviation industry or the military. “Those are sectors that are less sensitive to cost, and they typically require lower volumes as well,” says Evelina Stoikou, head analyst for battery technologies and supply chains at the consultancy BloombergNEF. “It’s a good way to prove your concept, then go through and fund the pilot plant where you can make that and eventually scale up.”

---

Progress meter ………… 7

The technology works, the capital is there, and demand is not far behind. But as with anything in manufacturing, unknown unknowns remain. 

Every year, traffic crashes kill more than one million people, and they’re the leading cause of death for children and young adults. In the US, 100 people a day lose their lives this way, in many cases not on highways but on rural and local streets. “Traffic deaths are a leading cause of preventable death, yet we treat it like it’s inevitable,” says Leah Shahum, founder and director of the Vision Zero Network, a nonprofit focused on making streets less deadly. 

The sticking points

The causes of a crash can be muddy. Drivers make mistakes like speeding or getting distracted, but infrastructure fails them too: Perhaps they were on a road built for speed and not safety, in a screen-filled vehicle, or at an intersection where pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars aren’t visible. 

Cheap and proven traffic-calming opportunities abound—from using planters to tighten intersections to lowering speed limits—but government logjams and red tape can be speed bumps. “There’s so many moving parts,” says Laura Sandt of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. “On the flip side, it shows that we have so many opportunities for injury prevention.” 

The progress

The total number of traffic deaths has increased over the last century. And though the US rate has dipped from a peak of 30.8 deaths per 100,000 people in the 1930s, the past decade has seen a concerning jump in deadly pedestrian incidents. At the same time, communities are waking up to the essential role of traffic safety policy, Shahum says. 

One success story is Hoboken, New Jersey, which hasn’t had a traffic fatality since 2017. This is due to a combination of efforts like boosting investment in public transit, promoting walkability by extending curbs, and using cameras to identify crash-prone intersections in need of a redesign. But even there, obstacles remain. If an intersection hasn’t been proved to be deadly, for example, it can be an uphill battle to argue for removing parking spaces to widen curbs. “You’re kind of selling insurance through these improvements, and that’s not always easy,” says Greg Francese, the city’s acting director of transportation and parking.

There’s also no silver bullet that will work everywhere. Situated directly across the river from New York City, Hoboken is a highly transit-oriented city of less than 60,000 people. Success there might not translate to traffic-death hot spots like Memphis or Dallas. But it’s not impossible. Take Edmonton, Alberta, a sprawling, car-centric Canadian city of around one million people: Between 2015 and 2020, it cut traffic fatalities by 63% and serious injuries by 40% by adjusting speed limits and improving signals at crosswalks. 

---

Progress meter ………… 6

We know how to tweak intersections and adjust traffic signals. Getting the funding and will to roll out those changes is the big red light. 

Given that water is 1,000 times denser than air, moving through those two mediums requires very different mechanics—or so one might assume. Yet birds like gulls and puffins can plunge into the sea, swim underwater, and leap back into the air to fly away. And now engineers at MIT and EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland, have designed a robot that can do likewise. 

The “flapping-wing aerial-aquatic vehicle,” or FAAV, weighs less than 300 grams (about half a pound) and is equipped with a central fuselage, two flexible wings, and a steerable tail. The body contains a battery and a waterproof electric motor that drives a crankshaft, which pumps the wings up and down at preset frequencies. The wings are made of thin membranes that are coated with hydrophobic nanoparticles to help wick away water. And the tail is motorized, enabling it to change its angle to help the robot fly up or dive down.

In experiments carried out in a water tank and at Lake Geneva, a team led by Raphael Zufferey, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, identified combinations of wing size, flapping frequency, and tail angle that enable the robot to smoothly transition from swimming to flying. 

The best results came with medium-size wings that were flexible enough to minimize flapping amplitude in water and also firm enough to keep the robot aloft in the air. The speeds and flapping frequencies were similar to those used by actual birds, and a pitch of 70 degrees—a relatively steep angle—allowed the robot to make the leap from water to air. Interestingly, although many diving birds paddle their feet to help them take off from the water’s surface, the team found that the bot didn’t need feet at all.

The engineers’ results could help pave the way for a new class of drones and vehicles that could fly to and sample from aquatic regions too dangerous for traditional vessels to access.

“Our dream vision is for oceanographers, marine biologists, and members of coastal communities to launch this robot from a boat, or from shore, and it would fly close to the area of interest, such as an iceberg or a port facility, or over a pod of whales,” says Zufferey. “It would dive into the water to take a measurement or collect a sample, and fly back to deliver the data at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods. Then it could go back out to dive for more.” 

The researchers are now trying to design wings that can turn as well as flap. They will also test the robot’s performance under turbulent conditions, such as swimming in choppy waters and flying through wind. Then they hope to deploy the vehicle to help answer questions in ocean science.

“One of the major challenges in ocean science is collecting data both frequently and across many locations, which is something this robot could do in the future,” Zufferey says. “You could send this out not just every week, but every hour. It could fly out at high speeds, dive in, fly back, deliver its data, and go back out, multiple times.” 

When Tristan Brown, an associate professor of history at MIT, first examined a Chinese tea chest label displayed at Old South Meeting House, he had no reason to doubt its story. Descendants of the Boston blacksmith Thomas Wells had donated the label in 1987, saying it had been recovered after colonial protesters threw tea into Boston Harbor in 1773. 

But after a year of research, Brown reached a different conclusion: The label was made nearly a century later. The decisive clue came when he read the Chinese text in Cantonese rather than Mandarin, as previous scholars had done. He found that the characters had been used phonetically, in slightly variant forms across contemporary sources, to represent the name of Smith, Archer & Co., a US firm that acquired Asian tea for shipment to American markets during the 1860s and 1870s.

Working with the Wells family, he traced the label to a relative who traveled from Michigan to California during the Gold Rush era before returning and operating a business known as the California Tea Store. Brown argues that claims for its revolutionary pedigree probably developed later, amid the centennial commemorations of the 1870s.

The discovery does not make the label historically insignificant, he says. Instead, what began as an inquiry into a supposed artifact of the Boston Tea Party became a study of how ordinary objects acquire historical authority, and how historical memory itself is made.

“History is never finished,” he says. “Even objects that have sat in museums for decades can reveal entirely new stories when we ask new questions.”