Astronauts take first X-rays in space 12%

By Andrew Paul24%

7/14/2026, 6:21:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Halo Effect, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 789 faulty-reasoning hits from 585 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.8% and a BS Rank of 12% (18,664 of 21,127 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

For more than 40 years, ultrasound has remained the sole medical imaging method in space , but not by choice. 
Astronauts require extensive training in order to operate the equipment, and the technique relies on soundwave transmission—something particularly difficult to maintain in a cramped, loud environment. 
“It’s been a dream for aerospace medicine to have more than one imaging modality for diagnosing illnesses and injuries in space,” explained Mayo Clinic researcher Sheyna Gifford . 
So why haven’t crews started packing X-ray devices for their missions? 
X-ray machines are hefty and generate sizable amounts of radiation, while subjects must remain very still during imaging. 
“Because everything in space is constantly moving, the conceit has been that obtaining a diagnostic image in orbit was too technically challenging,” added Gifford. 
These past limitations are finally disappearing. 
Commercial off-the-shelf X-ray machines like the ice cooler-sized MinXray TR90BH now allow users to perform scans on subjects far away from traditional facilities. 
In 2022, Gifford assisted in preparing a crew to successfully generate digital X-rays while experiencing microgravity during a parabolic flight. 
Gifford’s team then spent years collaborating with SpaceX to plan another feasibility study. 
This time, they didn’t want to operate an X-ray machine aboard an aircraft simulating the conditions in space—they intended to use the equipment during an orbital mission. 
Representative preflight, in-flight, and postflight chest radiographs. 
Radiographs of the chest were acquired (A) preflight by a crewmember, (B, C) in-flight on day 3 after launch (L+3) by a crewmember, and (D) postflight by a non-crew operator using the same imaging protocol. 
Credit: Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 
The process was detailed in a recently published study in the journal Radiology , and focuses on last year’s Fram2 mission . 
Instead of days of medical training, astronauts spent only four hours learning how to use their portable radiography device. 
They then took preflight X-rays of a hand, forearm, chest, abdomen, and pelvis ahead of their SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launch on March 31, 2025. 
Once in orbit, the team calibrated the system before testing their MinXray on the same body parts as well as a smartwatch. 
Once the crew returned, a trio of independent radiologists reviewed the orbital X-ray images based on their positioning, spatial and contrast resolutions, and general scan quality. 
Although positioning scores were slightly decreased for the central body images, every other scan held up to similar examples created on Earth. 
Meanwhile, the astronauts reported that using the machine was easy despite minimal prior coaching. 
“Acquiring diagnostically useful X-rays in space is something that anyone can do,” said Gifford. 
“Three very talented nonmedical people with four hours of training in one of the harshest environments did it right and did it well.” 
Looking ahead, researchers hope to conduct further X-ray tests during orbital missions, while continuing to reduce the overall size of equipment. 
According to Gifford, the implications go beyond medical emergencies. 
“For sustained human presence in space, X-rays are critical not just for crew members but also for other mission components like electronics and spacesuits,” she said. 
“The only way to look inside these objects without taking them apart is to X-ray them.” 
Before astronauts install X-ray machines on the moon, there is at least one issue that requires immediate attention. 
While still useful during the mission, Fram2 astronauts did report their machine received some relatively minor exterior damage during the takeoff and landing. 
The post Astronauts take first X-rays in space appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.1%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.1%This article: 8.4%Andrew Paul: 3.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias8.4%This article: 7.7%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 4.6%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect4.6%This article: 9.4%Andrew Paul: 6.9%Popular Science: 4.7%Optimism Bias9.4%This article: 3.1%Andrew Paul: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 7.7%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias7.7%This article: 2.4%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Andrew Paul: 5.6%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 4.6%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.4%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.0%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.2%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal15.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.6%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading4.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.4%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.9%

585 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers28%attributed speech424writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageRadiological Society of North America (RSNA) • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSheyna Gifford • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePopular Science • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sheyna Gifford

100%flagged-word coverage
140 attributed words87% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Sheyna Gifford: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Sheyna Gifford: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.