Pittsburgh-area native piloting SpaceX flight to International Space Station
A crew of four rocketed off from NASA's Kennedy Space Center at 11:43 a.m. on Friday, running a day late after Thursday's launch was scrubbed when thick clouds rolled in at the one-minute, 7-second mark.
The three-man one-woman crew will replace colleagues who launched to the space station in March as fill-ins for the two stuck Starliner astronauts. The SpaceX capsule should reach the orbiting lab this weekend and stay for at least six months.
Fifty-eight-year-old E. Michael Fincke from Emsworth is piloting the mission. Fincke graduated from Sewickley Academy in 1985 and attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on an Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship before going to Stanford University. He was also awarded degrees from El Camino College and the University of Houston - Clear Lake.
Selected by NASA as an astronaut in 1996, Fincke has three spaceflights under his belt. NASA says he's logged more than a year in orbit, with nine spacewalks totaling 48 hours and 37 minutes of EVA time.
"Boy, it's great to be back in orbit again," Fincke radioed after the launch. He last soared on NASA's next-to-last space shuttle flight in 2011.
Fincke has received several awards, including three NASA Distinguished Service Medals, which is the highest honor bestowed by the agency.
NASA says Fincke's parents still call Emsworth home.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Atombeat and BioDuro link for peptide drug discovery platform
Atombeat and BioDuro have announced a strategic partnership to launch an AI-powered platform aimed at accelerating peptide drug discovery. The collaboration combines Atombeat's expertise in in silico modelling with BioDuro's capabilities in discovery chemistry, biology, and drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. The initiative is set to enhance the development of next-generation peptides, quality candidates with quick timelines and cost-effectiveness across various therapeutic areas. Atombeat expedites the discovery of drugs using its Hermite software and RiDYMO platform, incorporating technologies such as Uni-Dock and Reinforced Dynamics. These tools enable the exploration of a digital library with over one trillion potential peptide compounds, streamlining the early drug discovery process. By focusing on the most promising candidates, the platform is designed to save cost, time and effort in drug development. BioDuro's role in the partnership is to leverage its synthesis capability for producing several peptide compounds in parallel. The company will be able to deliver pure peptides within one week, without the need for purification steps. This integrated approach aims to significantly reduce research and development timelines and associated costs and risks. BioDuro CEO Dr Armin Spura stated: 'We are excited to advance peptide innovation through our strategic partnership with Atombeat. Atombeat brings extensive experience in AI-assisted drug design and optimisation. 'Together, we aim to provide the industry with leading services in peptide drug development, accelerating smarter and more efficient peptide research, and delivering faster and comprehensive solutions to our global clients.' The AI-accelerated platform will facilitate a seamless workflow from molecular design to preclinical candidate selection. It is expected to deliver cyclic peptides that meet key developability traits, such as membrane permeability, across a broad range of therapeutic areas. "Atombeat and BioDuro link for peptide drug discovery platform" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bruker (NASDAQ:BRKR) Reports Sales Below Analyst Estimates In Q2 Earnings
Scientific instrument company Bruker (NASDAQ:BRKR). missed Wall Street's revenue expectations in Q2 CY2025, with sales flat year on year at $797.4 million. The company's full-year revenue guidance of $3.47 billion at the midpoint came in 1.5% below analysts' estimates. Its non-GAAP profit of $0.32 per share was 23.4% below analysts' consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy Bruker? Find out in our full research report. Bruker (BRKR) Q2 CY2025 Highlights: Revenue: $797.4 million vs analyst estimates of $809.2 million (flat year on year, 1.5% miss) Adjusted EPS: $0.32 vs analyst expectations of $0.42 (23.4% miss) Adjusted EBITDA: $68 million vs analyst estimates of $123.6 million (8.5% margin, 45% miss) The company dropped its revenue guidance for the full year to $3.47 billion at the midpoint from $3.52 billion, a 1.4% decrease Management lowered its full-year Adjusted EPS guidance to $2 at the midpoint, a 18% decrease Operating Margin: 1.5%, down from 6% in the same quarter last year Free Cash Flow was -$148.8 million compared to -$25.1 million in the same quarter last year Organic Revenue fell 7% year on year (7.4% in the same quarter last year) Market Capitalization: $5.76 billion Company Overview With roots dating back to the pioneering days of nuclear magnetic resonance technology, Bruker (NASDAQ:BRKR) develops and manufactures high-performance scientific instruments that enable researchers and industrial analysts to explore materials at microscopic, molecular, and cellular levels. Revenue Growth A company's long-term performance is an indicator of its overall quality. Any business can put up a good quarter or two, but many enduring ones grow for years. Thankfully, Bruker's 11.8% annualized revenue growth over the last five years was decent. Its growth was slightly above the average healthcare company and shows its offerings resonate with customers. We at StockStory place the most emphasis on long-term growth, but within healthcare, a half-decade historical view may miss recent innovations or disruptive industry trends. Bruker's annualized revenue growth of 12.6% over the last two years aligns with its five-year trend, suggesting its demand was stable. We can better understand the company's sales dynamics by analyzing its organic revenue, which strips out one-time events like acquisitions and currency fluctuations that don't accurately reflect its fundamentals. Over the last two years, Bruker's organic revenue averaged 4.8% year-on-year growth. Because this number is lower than its two-year revenue growth, we can see that some mixture of acquisitions and foreign exchange rates boosted its headline results. This quarter, Bruker missed Wall Street's estimates and reported a rather uninspiring 0.4% year-on-year revenue decline, generating $797.4 million of revenue. Looking ahead, sell-side analysts expect revenue to grow 3.2% over the next 12 months, a deceleration versus the last two years. This projection is underwhelming and suggests its products and services will face some demand challenges. Unless you've been living under a rock, it should be obvious by now that generative AI is going to have a huge impact on how large corporations do business. While Nvidia and AMD are trading close to all-time highs, we prefer a lesser-known (but still profitable) stock benefiting from the rise of AI. Click here to access our free report one of our favorites growth stories. Operating Margin Bruker has done a decent job managing its cost base over the last five years. The company has produced an average operating margin of 12.7%, higher than the broader healthcare sector. Analyzing the trend in its profitability, Bruker's operating margin decreased by 10.9 percentage points over the last five years. This performance was caused by more recent speed bumps as the company's margin fell by 12 percentage points on a two-year basis. We're disappointed in these results because it shows its expenses were rising and it couldn't pass those costs onto its customers. This quarter, Bruker generated an operating margin profit margin of 1.5%, down 4.5 percentage points year on year. This contraction shows it was less efficient because its expenses increased relative to its revenue. Earnings Per Share We track the long-term change in earnings per share (EPS) for the same reason as long-term revenue growth. Compared to revenue, however, EPS highlights whether a company's growth is profitable. Bruker's remarkable 10.4% annual EPS growth over the last five years aligns with its revenue performance. This tells us it maintained its per-share profitability as it expanded. In Q2, Bruker reported adjusted EPS at $0.32, down from $0.52 in the same quarter last year. This print missed analysts' estimates, but we care more about long-term adjusted EPS growth than short-term movements. Over the next 12 months, Wall Street expects Bruker's full-year EPS of $2.15 to grow 23%. Key Takeaways from Bruker's Q2 Results We struggled to find many positives in these results. Its full-year EPS guidance missed and its EPS fell short of Wall Street's estimates. Overall, this was a weaker quarter. The stock traded down 3.9% to $36.48 immediately following the results. Bruker underperformed this quarter, but does that create an opportunity to invest right now? We think that the latest quarter is just one piece of the longer-term business quality puzzle. Quality, when combined with valuation, can help determine if the stock is a buy. We cover that in our actionable full research report which you can read here, it's free.
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Monetizing Generative AI In Healthcare: Two Competing Paths
Generative AI is advancing faster than any technology in modern memory. When OpenAI released ChatGPT in late 2022, few in the medical community took notice. Most doctors saw it as a novelty, perhaps useful for administrative tasks or as a basic reference tool, but too unreliable for clinical care. In just a few years, that perception has shifted. Today's GenAI tools from companies like Google, Microsoft and Nvidia outperform most physicians on national medical exams and clinical challenges. Although none are currently recommended for patient use without physician oversight, that restriction is likely to be lifted soon. GenAI capabilities continue to double annually, and OpenAI's GPT-5 model is expected to launch within days. That raises a pressing question: How will generative AI be monetized in healthcare? Two competing visions are emerging. The first follows a familiar playbook: tech companies developing new FDA-approved tools for diagnosis and treatment. The second is clinician-led and would allow patients to use readily available, inexpensive large language models to manage their chronic diseases and assess new symptoms. To understand the advantages of each approach, it's first helpful to examine how different generative AI tools are from the AI applications used in medicine today. The Current Standard: Narrow AI Healthcare's traditional AI tools rely on technologies developed more than 25 years ago. Known as 'narrow AI,' these models are trained on large datasets to solve specific, well-defined problems. These applications are developed by training AI models to compare two datasets, detect dozens of subtle differences between them and assign a probability factor to each. For reliable results, the training data must be objective, accurate and replicable. That's why nearly all narrow AI tools are applied in visual specialties like radiology, pathology and ophthalmology — not cognitive fields that depend on subjective entries in the electronic medical record. Although these tools outperform clinicians, they are 'narrow' and can be used only for the specific task they were designed to complete. Take mammography, for example. Early-stage breast cancer can mimic benign conditions such as fibrocystic disease, causing radiologists to disagree when interpreting the same image. A narrow AI model trained on 10,000 mammograms (half from patients with confirmed cancer and half without) can detect far more differences than the human eye, resulting in 10-20% greater diagnostic accuracy than doctors. To evaluate narrow AI tools, the FDA assesses both the accuracy of the training data and the consistency of the tool's performance, similar to how it approves new drugs. This approach, however, doesn't work for generative AI. The development process and resulting technology are fundamentally different. The New Opportunity: Generative AI Today's large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are trained on the near-totality of internet-accessible content, including thousands of medical textbooks and academic journals. This broad, in-depth training enables LLMs to respond to virtually any medical question. But unlike narrow AI, their answers are highly dependent on how users frame their questions, prompt the model and follow up for clarification. That user dependency makes traditional FDA validation, which relies on consistent and repeatable responses, effectively impossible. However, the multimodal nature of generative AI (working across writing, audio, images and video) opens a wide range of opportunities for clinicians. For example, I recently spoke with a surgeon who used ChatGPT to interpret a post-operative chest X-ray. The AI not only provided an accurate assessment, but it did so immediately, a full 12 hours before the radiologist issued a formal report. Had there been a serious problem that the surgeon failed to recognize, the LLM would have proven lifesaving. Even without formal approval, physicians and patients increasingly consult GenAI for medical expertise. While there's still debate over whether LLMs are ready for independent clinical use by patients, the pace of progress is breathtaking. Microsoft recently reported that its Diagnostic Orchestrator tool achieved 85.5% accuracy across 304 New England Journal of Medicine case studies, compared to only 20% for physicians. How Will Generative AI Be Monetized In Medicine? As generative AI becomes more powerful each year, two distinct approaches are emerging for how it might be monetized in healthcare. Each model has trade-offs: Medical care often fails to deliver optimal outcomes at a price patients can afford. This monetization model would seek to close those gaps. Take diabetes, where fewer than half of patients achieve adequate disease control. The result: hundreds of thousands of preventable and costly heart attacks, kidney failure and limb amputations each year. In other cases, patients struggle to access timely, affordable advice for new symptoms or for managing their multiple chronic conditions One way to solve these problems would be through GenAI tools built by entrepreneurial companies. Venture funding would allow startups to apply a process called distillation to extract domain-specific knowledge from open-source foundation models like DeepSeek or Meta's LLaMA. They would then refine these models, training them on radiologist interpretations of thousands of X-rays, transcripts from patient advice centers or anonymized recordings of conversations with patients. The result: specialized generative AI tools designed to address specific gaps in care delivery. Developing these tools will be expensive, both in terms of model training and the FDA approval process. Companies would also face legal liability for adverse outcomes. Still, if successful, these tools would likely command high prices and deliver substantial profits. Although less profitable than an FDA-approved device or bot, the second path to GenAI monetization would prove easier to develop, much less expensive and far more transformative. Rather than developing new software, this approach empowers patients to use existing large language models (ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude) to access similar expertise. In this model, clinicians, educators or national specialty societies — not private companies — would take the lead and share in the benefits. They would create low-cost instructional materials for various patient-learning preferences ranging from digital guides and printed pamphlets to YouTube videos and short training courses. These resources would teach patients how to use any of the publicly available large language models safely and effectively. Using these educational tools, patients would learn how to enter blood glucose readings from home monitors or blood pressure measurements from electronic cuffs. The large language model would then assess their clinical progress and suggest whether medication adjustments might be needed. Patients could also ask questions about new symptoms, receive likely diagnoses and learn when to seek immediate medical care. In conjunction with their physician, they could use GenAI's image and video capabilities to identify signs of wound infections and alert their surgeons. Those individuals with chronic heart failure could monitor their condition more closely and catch signs of decompensation early — allowing cardiologists to intervene before hospitalization becomes necessary. A GI specialist could identify complex intestinal conditions using daily patient-reported inputs, or a neurologist could diagnose ALS by analyzing videos of a patient's gait. Unlike startup models that require tens of millions in funding and FDA approval, these educational tools could be developed and deployed quickly by doctors and other clinicians. Because they teach patients how to use existing tools rather than offer direct medical advice, they would avoid many regulatory burdens and face reduced legal liability. And with 40% of physicians already working part-time or in gig roles, there are hundreds, or likely thousands, of experts ready to contribute. And since generative AI tools can provide information in dozens of languages and literacy levels, they would offer unprecedented accessibility. Which Path Will We Take? The two models aren't mutually exclusive, and both will likely shape the future of medicine. Given the potential for massive financial return from the first approach, we can assume that dozens of entrepreneurs are already developing disease-focused generative AI tools. But rather than waiting for technology companies to introduce GenAI tools, physicians working alone or in conjunction with educational companies have the opportunity to drive the process and improve our nation's health.
