Our Spotlights

New research on the rocks collected by China's Chang'e 5 mission is rewriting our understanding of how the moon cooled. Stephen Elardo, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Geological Sciences with the University of Florida, has found that lava on the near side of the moon likely came from a much shallower depth than previously thought, contradicting previous theories on how the moon produced lavas through time. These samples of basalt, an igneous rock made up of rapidly cooled lava, were collected from the near side of the moon by the Chang’e 5 mission and are the youngest samples collected on any lunar mission, making them an invaluable resource for those studying the geological history of the moon. In order to get an estimate of how deep within the moon the Chang’e 5 lava came from, the team conducted high-pressure and high-temperature experiments on a synthetic lava with an identical composition. Previous work from Chinese scientists has determined that the lava erupted about 2 billion years ago and remote sensing from orbit has showed it erupted in an area with very high abundances of potassium, thorium and uranium on the surface, all of which are radioactive and produce heat. Scientists believe that, in large amounts, these elements generate enough heat to keep the moon hot near the surface, slowing the cooling process over time. “Using our experimental results and thermal evolution calculations, we put together a simple model showing that an enrichment in radioactive elements would have kept the Moon's upper mantle hundreds of degrees hotter than it would have been otherwise, even at 2 billion years ago,” explained Elardo. These findings contradict the previous theory that the temperature of the moon’s outer portions was too low to support melting of the shallow interior by that time and may challenge the hypothesis about how the moon cooled. Prior to this study, the generally-accepted theory was that the moon cooled from the top down. It was presumed that the mantle closer to the surface cooled first as the surface of the moon gradually lost heat to space, and that younger lavas like the one collected by Chang’e 5 must have come from the deep mantle where the moon would still be hot. This theory was backed by data from seismometers placed during the Apollo moon landings, but these findings suggest that there were still pockets of shallow mantle hot enough to partially melt even late into the moon’s cooling process. “Lunar magmatism, which is the record of volcanic activity on the moon, gives us a direct window into the composition of the Moon's mantle, which is where magmas ultimately come from,” said Elardo. “We don't have any direct samples of the Moon's mantle like we do for Earth, so our window into the composition of the mantle comes indirectly from its lavas.” Establishing a detailed timeline of the moon’s evolution represents a critical step towards understanding how other celestial bodies form and grow. Processes like cooling and geological layer formation are key steps in the “life cycles” of other moons and small planets. As our closest neighbor in the solar system, the moon offers us our best chance of learning about these processes. “My hope is that this study will lead to more work in lunar geodynamics, which is a field that uses complex computer simulations to model how planetary interiors move, flow, and cool through time,” said Elardo. “This is an area, at least for the moon, where there's a lot of uncertainty, and my hope is that this study helps to give that community another important data point for future models.”

An experimental mRNA vaccine boosted the tumor-fighting effects of immunotherapy in a mouse-model study, bringing researchers one step closer to their goal of developing a universal vaccine to “wake up” the immune system against cancer. Published today in Nature Biomedical Engineering, the University of Florida study showed that like a one-two punch, pairing the test vaccine with common anticancer drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors triggered a strong antitumor response in laboratory mice. A surprising element, researchers said, was that they achieved the promising results not by attacking a specific target protein expressed in the tumor, but by simply revving up the immune system — spurring it to respond as if fighting a virus. They did this by stimulating the expression of a protein called PD-L1 inside of tumors, making them more receptive to treatment. The research was supported by multiple federal agencies and foundations, including the National Institutes of Health. Senior author Elias Sayour, M.D., Ph.D., a UF Health pediatric oncologist and the Stop Children's Cancer/Bonnie R. Freeman Professor for Pediatric Oncology Research, said the results reveal a potential future treatment path — an alternative to surgery, radiation and chemotherapy — with broad implications for battling many types of treatment-resistant tumors. “This paper describes a very unexpected and exciting observation: that even a vaccine not specific to any particular tumor or virus — so long as it is an mRNA vaccine — could lead to tumor-specific effects,” said Sayour, principal investigator at the RNA Engineering Laboratory within UF’s Preston A. Wells Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy. “This finding is a proof of concept that these vaccines potentially could be commercialized as universal cancer vaccines to sensitize the immune system against a patient’s individual tumor,” said Sayour, a McKnight Brain Institute investigator and co-leader of a program in immuno-oncology and microbiome research. Until now, there have been two main ideas in cancer-vaccine development: To find a specific target expressed in many people with cancer, or to tailor a vaccine that is specific to targets expressed within a patient's own cancer. “This study suggests a third emerging paradigm,” said Duane Mitchell, M.D., Ph.D., a co-author of the paper. “What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction. And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients — even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine.” For more than eight years, Sayour has pioneered high-tech anticancer vaccines by combining lipid nanoparticles and mRNA. Short for messenger RNA, mRNA is found inside every cell — including tumor cells — and serves as a blueprint for protein production. This new study builds upon a breakthrough last year by Sayour’s lab: In a first-ever human clinical trial, an mRNA vaccine quickly reprogrammed the immune system to attack glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumor with a dismal prognosis. Among the most impressive findings in the four-patient trial was how quickly the new method — which used a “specific” or personalized vaccine made using a patient’s own tumor cells — spurred a vigorous immune-system response to reject the tumor. In the latest study, Sayour’s research team adapted their technology to test a “generalized” mRNA vaccine — meaning it was not aimed at a specific virus or mutated cells of cancer but engineered simply to prompt a strong immune system response. The mRNA formulation was made similarly to the COVID-19 vaccines, rooted in similar technology, but wasn’t aimed directly at the well-known spike protein of COVID. In mouse models of melanoma, the team saw promising results in normally treatment-resistant tumors when combining the mRNA formulation with a common immunotherapy drug called a PD-1 inhibitor, a type of monoclonal antibody that attempts to “educate” the immune system that a tumor is foreign, said Sayour, a professor in UF’s Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery and the Department of Pediatrics in the UF College of Medicine. Taking the research a step further, in mouse models of skin, bone and brain cancers, the investigators found beneficial effects when testing a different mRNA formulation as a solo treatment. In some models, the tumors were eliminated entirely. Sayour and colleagues observed that using an mRNA vaccine to activate immune responses seemingly unrelated to cancer could prompt T cells that weren’t working before to actually multiply and kill the cancer if the response spurred by the vaccine is strong enough. Taken together, the study’s implications are striking, said Mitchell, who directs the UF Clinical and Translational Science Institute and co-directs UF’s Preston A. Wells Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy. “It could potentially be a universal way of waking up a patient’s own immune response to cancer,” Mitchell said. “And that would be profound if generalizable to human studies.” The results, he said, show potential for a universal cancer vaccine that could activate the immune system and prime it to work in tandem with checkpoint inhibitor drugs to seize upon cancer — or in some cases, even work on its own to kill cancer. Now, the research team is working to improve current formulations and move to human clinical trials as rapidly as possible. While the experimental mRNA vaccine at this point is in early preclinical testing — in mice not humans — information about available nonrelated human clinical trials at UF Health can be viewed here.

For centuries, scholars and scientists have defined the “good life” in one of two ways: a life that is rooted in happiness, characterized by positive emotions, or one that is centered on meaning, guided by purpose and personal fulfillment. But what if there is another, equally valuable path — one that prioritizes challenge, change and curiosity? “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” — Erin Westgate, Ph.D., assistant professor psychology, director of the Florida Social Cognition and Emotion Lab This third dimension, which may result in a more psychologically rich life for some, is being explored in a new study — led by University of Florida psychologist Erin Westgate, Ph.D., in collaboration with Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago. According to their research, some people prioritize variety, novelty and intellectually stimulating experiences, even when those experiences are difficult, unpleasant or lack clear meaning. “This idea came from the question: Why do some people feel unfulfilled even when they have happy and meaningful lives?” Westgate said. “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” Westgate and Oishi’s research shows that a psychologically rich life is distinct from lives defined by happiness or meaning. While happiness focuses on feeling good, and meaning is about doing good, richness is about thinking deeply and seeing the world differently. And for a significant minority of people around the world, that third path is the one they would choose — even if it means giving up happiness or meaning. A new way to think about the ‘good life’ According to Westgate and Oishi, psychological richness is defined as a life filled with diverse, perspective-changing experiences — whether these are external, such as traveling or undertaking new challenges, or internal, like absorbing powerful books or pieces of music. “A psychologically rich life can come from something as simple as reading a great novel or hearing a haunting song,” Westgate said. “It doesn’t have to be about dramatic events, but it can shift the way you see the world.” Unlike happy or meaningful experiences, rich experiences are not always pleasant or purposeful. “College is a good example. It’s not always fun, and you might not always feel a deep sense of meaning, but it changes how you think,” Westgate said. “The same goes for experiences like living through a hurricane. You wouldn’t call it happy or even meaningful, but it shakes up your perspective.” Researchers in Westgate’s lab at UF have been studying how people respond to events like hurricanes, tracking students’ emotions and reactions as storms approach. The results show that many people have viewed these challenging experiences as psychologically rich — altering how they saw the world, even if they didn’t enjoy them. The roots of the idea While the study is new, the concept has been years in the making. Westgate and Oishi first introduced the term “psychologically rich life” in 2022, building on earlier research and scale development around 2015. Their latest paper expands the idea, showing that the concept resonates with people across cultures and fills a gap in how people define well-being. “In psychology and philosophy, dating back to Aristotle, there’s been a focus on hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being — happiness versus meaning,” Westgate said. “What we’re doing is saying, there’s another path that’s just as important. And for some people, it’s the one they value most.” While many people ideally want all three — happiness, meaning and richness — there are trade-offs. Rich experiences often come at the cost of comfort or clarity. “Interesting experiences aren’t always pleasant experiences,” Westgate said. “But they’re the ones that help us grow and see the world in new ways.” Westgate hopes the study will broaden how psychologists and the public think about what it means to live well. “We’re not saying happiness and meaning aren’t important,” Westgate said. “They are. But we’re also saying don’t forget about richness. Some of the most important experiences in life are the ones that challenge us, that surprise us and that make us see the world differently.”

For millions of viewers, “Love Island” has been a summer obsession – a chance to peek in on a sunny villa full of beautiful singles looking for love. But according to Andrew Selepak, Ph.D., a media professor at the University of Florida, the reality show isn’t really about romance. “The reality of reality TV is that it doesn’t reflect reality,” Selepak said. “These are people who were selected; they were cast just like you would cast a movie or a scripted TV show.” Still, what happens on the island isn’t completely disconnected from real life. The show's format, which is built on snap decisions, physical attraction, and frequent recouplings, mirrors the current dating landscape in unsettling ways. “I think it's reflective of the current culture that young people are experiencing with dating, which is very superficial and doesn't lead to long-term lasting relationships because a long-term lasting relationship can't be based on superficial qualities,” Selepak said. Selepak compares “Love Island” to “TV Tinder.” Much like on dating apps, contestants size each other up based on looks and vibes rather than values or long-term compatibility. And while the show promotes the idea of finding “the one,” the numbers tell a different story. “It’s like less than 12% of the couples actually remain together for any period of time,” Selepak said. “At some point, you would think people would realize it’s fake.” However, viewers continue to watch, and contestants continue to sign up. Why? Because the point isn't necessarily to find love. It's about visibility, likes and followers. “This is where you have the social media aspect playing in, where people are looking to become influencers and to gain fame, notoriety, likes and follows,” Selepak said. “The people who are on the shows, these are people who intentionally have gone out and said, 'I want my dirty laundry to be on TV.’ There's a narcissistic aspect of wanting to be on a show like that. Most people, I think, would be hesitant to tell their deep, dark secrets – or tell the things about themselves that they would normally only share with a select few – to a large audience.” For contestants, this often means performing love rather than experiencing it – a behavior that echoes real-world dating on social media. For audiences, “Love Island” gives them the dissatisfaction of watching beautiful people experience the same dating struggles they do. In the end, “Love Island” may not teach us how to find lasting love, but it might explain why so many people are struggling to.

Pepper, the pet cat who made headlines last year for his role in the discovery of the first jeilongvirus found in the U.S., is at it again. This time, his hunting prowess contributed to the identification of a new strain of orthoreovirus. John Lednicky, Ph.D., Pepper’s owner and a University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions virologist, took Pepper’s catch — a dead Everglades short-tailed shrew — into the lab for testing as part of his ongoing work to understand transmission of the mule deerpox virus. Testing revealed the shrew had a previously unidentified strain of orthoreovirus. Viruses in this genus are known to infect humans, white-tailed deer, bats and other mammals. While orthoreoviruses’ effects on humans are not yet well understood, there have been rare reports of the virus being associated with cases of encephalitis, meningitis and gastroenteritis in children. “The bottom line is we need to pay attention to orthoreoviruses, and know how to rapidly detect them,” said Lednicky, a research professor in the PHHP Department of Environmental and Global Health and a member of UF’s Emerging Pathogens Institute. The UF team published the complete genomic coding sequences for the virus they named “Gainesville shrew mammalian orthoreovirus type 3 strain UF-1” in the journal Microbiology Resource Announcements. “There are many different mammalian orthoreoviruses and not enough is known about this recently identified virus to be concerned,” said the paper’s lead author Emily DeRuyter, a UF Ph.D. candidate in One Health. “Mammalian orthoreoviruses were originally considered to be ‘orphan’ viruses, present in mammals including humans, but not associated with diseases. More recently, they have been implicated in respiratory, central nervous system and gastrointestinal diseases.” The Lednicky lab’s jeilongvirus and orthoreovirus discoveries come on the heels of the team publishing their discovery of two other novel viruses found in farmed white-tailed deer. Given the propensity of viruses to constantly evolve, paired with the team’s sophisticated lab techniques, finding new viruses isn’t entirely surprising, Lednicky said. “I’m not the first one to say this, but essentially, if you look, you’ll find, and that’s why we keep finding all these new viruses,” Lednicky said. Like influenza virus, two different types of orthoreovirus can infect a host cell, causing the viruses’ genes to mix and match, in essence, creating a brand new virus, Lednicky said. In 2019, Lednicky and colleagues isolated the first orthoreovirus found in a deer. That strain’s genes were nearly identical to an orthoreovirus found in farmed mink in China and a deathly ill lion in Japan. How in the world, the scientific community wondered, could the same hybrid virus appear in a farmed deer in Florida and two species of carnivores across the globe? Some experts speculated that components of the animals’ feed could have come from the same manufacturer. With so many unanswered questions about orthoreoviruses and their modes of transmission, prevalence in human and animal hosts and just how sick they could make us, more research is needed, DeRuyter and Lednicky said. Next steps would include serology and immunology studies to understand the threat Gainesville shrew mammalian orthoreovirus type 3 strain UF-1 may hold for humans, wildlife and pets. For readers concerned about Pepper’s health, rest assured. He has shown no signs of illness from his outdoor adventures and will likely continue to contribute to scientific discovery through specimen collection.    “This was an opportunistic study,” Lednicky said. “If you come across a dead animal, why not test it instead of just burying it? There is a lot of information that can be gained.”

Researchers from the University of Florida Emerging Pathogens Institute and Texas A&M University gathered their resources to investigate the potential of vector-borne transmission of Chagas in Florida. The 10-year-long study, published in the Public Library of Science Neglected Tropical Diseases, used data from Florida-based submissions, as well as field evidence collected from 23 counties across Florida. Chagas disease is considered rare in the United States. Since it is not notifiable to most state health departments, it is quite difficult to know exactly how many cases there are and how frequently it’s transmitted. Chagas disease is caused by the protozoan parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. Nuisance blood-sucking insects known as kissing bugs spread the parasite to humans when exposure to their feces penetrates the mucus membranes, breaches the skin or gets orally ingested. Interestingly, it is believed that most companion animals, like dogs and cats, acquire the parasite from eating the kissing bug itself. The first record of kissing bugs, scientifically known as Triatoma sanguisuga, harboring T. cruzi in Florida was from an insect in Gainesville in 1988. However, kissing bugs have been calling the state home for far longer than humans have. Currently, there are two known endemic species of kissing bugs in the Sunshine State: Triatoma sanguisuga, the species invading homes, and the cryptic species Paratriatoma lecticularia, which live primarily in certain Floridan ecosystems but were not found in this study. Read more ...

Domestic abuse affects millions of people every year, often in unseen and deeply personal ways, and online threats toward victims can be particularly harmful. To address this reality locally, the University of Florida’s Center for Privacy and Security for Marginalized and Vulnerable Populations, or PRISM, works with Gainesville-based domestic abuse support center Peaceful Paths to help people stay safe in the digital world. Kevin Butler, Ph.D., the director of PRISM and the Florida Institute for Cybersecurity Research at UF, has been researching issues related to security and privacy of technologies that affect survivors of intimate partner violence for years. He and his graduate students connected with Peaceful Paths in 2022, presenting their findings on cybersecurity and demonstrating how their research may help improve online safety for vulnerable populations. They developed a pilot study, a survey and interview protocols that are now helping those in need at the center. “[We aim to] develop principles of design that will allow for a robust technology design that really mitigates harms and improves benefits for all,” Butler said about PRISM. Educating abuse survivors has been a key component of the collaboration between UF and Peaceful Paths. For example, PRISM’s team has conducted research on the effects of stalkerware, also known as spyware, which is a type of software or app designed to be installed secretly on people’s devices to monitor their activities without their consent. Abusers may use this tool to track and harass victims, and stalkerware is regularly linked to domestic violence – a fact that is not widely known. "Even the first presentation [UF] gave enhanced our advocates' knowledge of security pieces, which helps them safety plan with survivors," said Peaceful Paths CEO Crystal Sorrow. “It actually increases the safety of everyone in the community we work with when we talk about red flags, digital dating abuse and healthy relationships.” While PRISM, which is supported by the National Science Foundation, is making an impact on the local community, its overall reach is much broader. PRISM was the first academic partner in the Coalition Against Stalkerware, which includes groups such as the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and the world.

In the global AI race between small and major competitors, established companies versus new players, and ubiquitous versus niche uses, the next giant leap isn’t about faster chips or improved algorithms. Where AI agents have already vacuumed up so much of the information on the internet, the next great uncertainty is where they’ll find the next trove of big data. The answer is not in Silicon Valley. It’s all across the nation at our major research universities, which are key to maintaining global competitiveness against China. To teach an AI system to “think” requires it to draw on massive amounts of data to build models. At a recent conference, Ilya Sutskever, the former chief scientist at OpenAI — the creator of ChatGPT — called data the “fossil fuel of AI.” Just as we will use up fossil fuels because they are not renewable, he said we are running out of new data to mine to keep fueling the gains in AI. However, so much of this thinking assumes AI was created by private Silicon Valley start-ups and the like. AI’s history is actually deeply rooted in U.S. universities dating back to the 1940s, when early research laid the groundwork for the algorithms and tools used today. While the computing power to use those tools was created only recently, the foundation was laid after World War II, not in the private sector but at our universities. Contrary to a “fossil fuel problem,” I believe AI has its own renewable fuel source: the data and expertise generated from our comprehensive public academic institutions. In fact, at the major AI conferences driving the field, most papers come from academic institutions. Our AI systems learn about our world only from the data we offer them. Current AI models like ChatGPT are scraping information from some academic journal articles in open-access repositories, but there are enormous troves of untapped academic data that could be used to make all these models more meaningful. A way past data scarcity is to develop new AI methods that leverage all of our knowledge in all of its forms. Our research institutions have the varied expertise in all aspects of our society to do this. Here’s just one example: We are creating the next generation of “digital twin” technology. Digital twins are virtual recreations of places or systems in our world. Using AI, we can develop digital twins that gather all of our data and knowledge about a system — whether a city, a community or even a person — in one place and allow users to ask “what if” questions. The University of Florida, for example, is building a digital twin for the city of Jacksonville, which contains the profile of each building, elevation data throughout the city and even septic tank locations. The twin also embeds detailed state-of-the-art waterflow models. In that virtual world, we can test all sorts of ideas for improving Jacksonville’s hurricane evacuation planning and water quality before implementing them in the actual city. As we continue to layer more data into the twin — real-time traffic information, scans of road conditions and more — our ability to deploy city resources will be more informed and driven by real-time actionable data and modeling. Using an AI system backed by this digital twin, city leaders could ask, “How would a new road in downtown Jacksonville impact evacuation times? How would the added road modify water runoff?” and so on. The possibilities for this emerging area of AI are endless. We could create digital twins of humans to layer human biology knowledge with personalized medical histories and imaging scans to understand how individuals may respond to particular treatments. Universities are also acquiring increasingly powerful supercomputers that are supercharging their innovations, such as the University of Florida’s HiPerGator, recently acquired from NVIDIA, which is being used for problems across all disciplines. Oregon State University and the University of Missouri, for example, are using their own access to supercomputers to advance marine science discoveries and improve elder care. In short, to see the next big leap in AI, don’t immediately look to Silicon Valley. Start scanning the horizon for those research universities that have the computing horsepower and the unique ability to continually renew the data and knowledge that will supercharge the next big thing in AI. Read more...

In the vast vacuum of space, Earth-bound limitations no longer apply. And that’s exactly where UF engineering associate professor Victoria Miller, Ph.D., and her students are pushing the boundaries of possibilities. In partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, the University of Florida engineering team is exploring how to manufacture precision metal structures in orbit using laser technology. “We want to build big things in space. To build big things in space, you must start manufacturing things in space. This is an exciting new frontier,” said Miller. An associate professor in the Department of Materials Science & Engineering at UF’s Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, Miller said the project called NOM4D – which means Novel Orbital and Moon Manufacturing, Materials, and Mass-efficient Design – seeks to transform how people think about space infrastructure development. Picture constructing massive structures in orbit, like a 100-meter solar array built using advanced laser technology. “We’d love to see large-scale structures like satellite antennas, solar panels, space telescopes or even parts of space stations built directly in orbit. This would be a major step toward sustainable space operations and longer missions,” said team member Tianchen Wei, a third-year Ph.D. student in materials science and engineering. UF received a $1.1 million DARPA contract to carry out this pioneering research over three phases. While other universities explore various aspects of space manufacturing, UF is the only one specifically focused on laser forming for space applications, Miller said. A major challenge of the NOM4D project is overcoming the size and weight limitations of rocket cargo. To address these concerns, Miller’s team is developing laser-forming technology to trace precise patterns on metals to bend them into shape. If executed correctly, the heat from the laser bends the metal without human touch; a key step toward making orbital manufacturing a reality. “With this technology, we can build structures in space far more efficiently than launching them fully assembled from Earth,” said team member Nathan Fripp, also a third-year Ph.D. student studying materials science and engineering. “This opens up a wide range of new possibilities for space exploration, satellite systems and even future habitats.” Miller said laser bending is complex but getting the correct shape from the metal is only part of the equation. “The challenge is ensuring that the material properties stay good or improve during the laser-forming process,” she said. “Can we ensure when we bend this sheet metal that bent regions still have really good properties and are strong and tough with the right flexibility?” To analyze the materials, Miller’s students are running controlled tests on aluminum, ceramics and stainless steel, assessing how variables like laser input, heat and gravity affect how materials bend and behave. “We run many controlled tests and collect detailed data on how different metals respond to laser energy: how much they bend, how much they heat up, how the heat affects them and more. We have also developed models to predict the temperature and the amount of bending based on the material properties and laser energy input,” said Wei. “We continuously learn from both modeling and experiments to deepen our understanding of the process.” The research started in 2021 and has made significant progress, but the technology must be developed further before it’s ready for use in space. This is why collaboration with the NASA Marshall Space Center is so critical. It enables UF researchers to dramatically increase the technology readiness level (TRL) by testing laser forming in space-like conditions inside a thermal vacuum chamber provided by NASA. Fripp leads this testing using the chamber to observe how materials respond to the harsh environment of space. “We've observed that many factors, such as laser parameters, material properties and atmospheric conditions, can significantly determine the final results. In space, conditions like extreme temperatures, microgravity and vacuums further change how materials behave. As a result, adapting our forming techniques to work reliably and consistently in space adds another layer of complexity,” said Fripp. Another important step is building a feedback loop into the manufacturing process. A sensor would detect the bending angle in real time, allowing for feedback and recalibration of the laser’s path. As the project enters its final year, finishing in June of 2026, questions remain -- especially around maintaining material integrity during the laser-forming process. Still, Miller’s team remains optimistic. UF moves one step closer to a new era of construction with each simulation and laser test. “It's great to be a part of a team pushing the boundaries of what's possible in manufacturing, not just on Earth, but beyond,” said Wei.