NATO Promulgates Landmark Sense and Avoid Standard STANAG 4811 for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

 

First Transatlantic Standard for UAS Integration in Civil Airspace Now Effective Across Alliance

NATO has officially promulgated its groundbreaking "Sense and Avoid for Unmanned Aircraft Systems" standard, marking a pivotal milestone in the integration of military unmanned aircraft into unsegregated airspace. The standard, designated as Allied Engineering Publication (AEP) 107 Edition B and AEP-107.1 Edition A, along with STANAG 4811 Edition 3, became effective in August 2025 after ratification by NATO member nations.

According to MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Matt Edwards, an Assistant Group Leader in the Air Traffic Control mission area, this represents "the first Sense/Detect and Avoid standard to be implemented on both sides of the Atlantic." The standard transitioned from recommended practice to an implemented requirement following extensive validation by military and civil authorities, industry stakeholders, and technical experts.

Operational Implementation Using UK Protector Platform

NATO is actively operationalizing the sense and avoid capabilities across the Alliance through a comprehensive demonstration program. The organization is "developing NATO-wide means to demonstrate compliance to the standard and validating NATO-wide operational approval processes, using the UK Protector as a demonstration platform."

The UK's Royal Air Force has been at the forefront of implementing these capabilities with its MQ-9B Protector program. RAF flight-tested its MQ-9B Protector drone at Waddington base in Lincolnshire in February 2025, marking significant progress in the operational deployment of NATO-compliant sense and avoid technology.

Wing Commander Long, head of Protector RG Mk1 International Strategy for the RAF, emphasized the importance of standardization efforts: "It is important for the RAF and Nato to have forums such as this to discuss the current and future role of uncrewed aircraft systems and agree standards for their use across Nato."

Technical Requirements and Specifications

The new standard establishes minimum functional and performance requirements for UAS Sense and Avoid (SAA) systems operating in non-segregated airspace. AEP-107 "provides minimum functional and performance requirements to ensure the safety and interoperability of SAA systems for UAS operations in non-segregated airspace" and "defines tailorable acceptable means of compliance for each requirement."

The NATO interoperability requirements were developed to achieve three core objectives:

• Standardize the minimum functional and performance requirements for UAS SAA systems to ensure interoperability
• Compatibility: to ensure the safety of civil and military operations through acceptable interactions of equipment, operations, procedures, and humans
• Commonality: to enable routine operations by standardizing operational procedures, functionality, performance, and approval processes

Industry Implementation and Technology Development

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) has emerged as a leader in sense and avoid technology development, with its MQ-9B platform serving as the primary demonstration vehicle for NATO compliance. The sense-and-avoid system GA-ASI provides for the MQ-9B to meet NATO requirements consists of air-to-air radar, traffic alert and collision avoidance system and ADS-B.

GA-ASI's comprehensive approach to detect and avoid technology includes multiple sensor modalities. The company's Detect and Avoid (DAA) system incorporates "a TCAS II collision avoidance system, certified hardware and software" and is expected to achieve TSO-C211 and TSO-C212 authorization in 2025.

The company's Due Regard Radar (DRR) represents a significant technological advancement. The DRR "is comprised of a two panel Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Antenna and a Radar Electronics Assembly (REA) that give the RPA pilot the ability to detect and track aircraft across the same Field-of-View (FOV) as a manned aircraft."

Growing International Adoption

The MQ-9B platform, designed to meet NATO STANAG 4671 airworthiness requirements, has attracted significant international interest. Current or future operators of the MQ-9B SkyGuardian and/or its MQ-9A predecessor include the US, UK, France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain, as well as non-Nato countries such as Taiwan and the UAE.

Recent developments have expanded the platform's global footprint. Belgian Air Force ordered 2 MQ-9B SkyGuardian systems (4 drones) with the first system delivered in summer of 2025. Additionally, Joint Arctic Command ordered 4 MQ-9B SkyGuardian systems for surveillance in the arctic and north atlantic region, to be delivered by 2028-2029.

Technological Challenges and Solutions

The development of effective sense and avoid systems addresses fundamental challenges in unmanned aircraft operations. Traditional approaches have relied heavily on cooperative systems such as Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), which require other aircraft to have transponders.

However, as industry experts note, "Communication based sense and avoid mechanisms like ADS-B and TCAS have an inherent dependency on the transponder of the target UAV. These mechanisms suffer if the target is hostile or non-cooperative or if it is unequipped with a transponder."

To address these limitations, advanced systems now incorporate multiple sensor types. Technologies used in SAA systems include "a combination of cameras, radar, light detection and ranging (LIDAR), and other components." This multi-modal approach ensures comprehensive coverage of both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft.

Market Implications and Future Outlook

The establishment of NATO's sense and avoid standard arrives at a time of unprecedented growth in the unmanned aircraft systems market. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Market Size is forecast to reach $82,646.7 million by 2030, at a CAGR of 15.10% during forecast period 2024-2030.

This growth is driven by "the growing adoption of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, sense and avoid systems, cloud computing in UAS." The standardization of sense and avoid requirements is expected to accelerate integration of UAS into civil airspace and expand operational applications.

Alliance-Wide Standardization Efforts

The sense and avoid standard represents part of broader NATO efforts to achieve platform and capability commonality across member nations. The NATO Joint Capability Group for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (JCGUAS) focuses on "improving the operational effectiveness of UAS in Nato and coalition environments by ensuring their availability, interoperability, utility, and operational integrity."

McKenzie, NATO International Staff-UAS Officer and part of the JCGUAS Leadership, highlighted the collaborative nature of the standardization process: "Our autumn meeting in London delivered an important Nato-wide standard on Sense and Avoid as well as providing a forum in which industry, government, academia, and military were brought together to enhance the development of related standards."

The standardization effort builds upon existing NATO frameworks, particularly STANAG 4671, which establishes airworthiness requirements for military UAS operations across member nations' airspace. "Augmenting established Nato Uncrewed Aircraft Systems Airworthiness Standards, with the new Sense and Avoid standard, facilitates allied adoption of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, assisting allies' ability to prove that these aircraft are airworthy, safe, reliable, and predictable."

As NATO continues to operationalize these capabilities, the sense and avoid standard represents a crucial step toward full integration of unmanned aircraft systems into global airspace, promising enhanced operational flexibility and interoperability for Alliance forces worldwide.

---

Sources

1. NATO publishes new sense-and-avoid standard for UAS in unsegregated airspace - Unmanned airspace. (August 27, 2025). Retrieved from https://www.unmannedairspace.info/emerging-regulations/nato-publishes-new-sense-and-avoid-standard-for-uas-in-unsegregated-airspace/
2. Thomas, R. (October 5, 2023). NATO determines landmark autonomous sense-and-avoid standard. Airforce Technology. Retrieved from https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/nato-determines-landmark-autonomous-sense-and-avoid-standard/
3. World's first sense and avoid standard for drone warfare finalised at RAF event. (October 5, 2023). Forces News. Retrieved from https://www.forcesnews.com/technology/worlds-first-sense-and-avoid-standard-drone-warfare-finalised
4. Royal Air Force Flight-Tests MQ-9B Protector Drone. (February 17, 2025). The Defense Post. Retrieved from https://thedefensepost.com/2025/02/14/uk-mq-9b-protector-drone/
5. MQ-9B Demos Satcom, Laptop-Controlled Mission. (February 26, 2019). Aviation Today. Retrieved from https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/02/26/mq-9b-skyguardian-demos-satcom-laptop-controlled-mission/
6. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Market Report, 2024-2030. Industry ARC. Retrieved from https://www.industryarc.com/Report/15014/unmanned-aircraft-systems-market.html
7. General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. (August 2025). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
8. Detect and Avoid System. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. Retrieved from https://www.ga-asi.com/detect-and-avoid-system
9. Sense and Avoid Systems for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. (April 28, 2022). DSIAC. Retrieved from https://dsiac.dtic.mil/technical-inquiries/notable/sense-avoid-systems-for-small-uas/
10. Implementation of collision avoidance system using TCAS II to UAVs. (August 1, 2006). ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3278357_Implementation_of_collision_avoidance_system_using_TCAS_II_to_UAVs
11. How Sense and Avoid Works in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Iris Automation. Retrieved from https://www.irisonboard.com/how-sense-and-avoid-works-in-unmanned-aerial-vehicles/
12. UAS Airborne Collision Avoidance System Successfully Tested. (November 30, 2018). Unmanned Systems Technology. Retrieved from https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2018/11/uas-airborne-collision-avoidance-system-successfully-tested/
13. NATO STANAG 4671. (May 15, 2025). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_STANAG_4671
14. Traffic collision avoidance system. (May 5, 2025). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system
15. MQ-9B SkyGuardian. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. Retrieved from https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9b-skyguardian
16. Protector RG Mk 1 (MQ-9B). Royal Air Force. Retrieved from https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/future-aircraft/protector-rg-mk-1-mq-9b1/

NATO Sense and Avoid Standard News Story | Claude | Claude

SpaceX Starship 10 Test Flight

SpaceX's Starship Finally Nails It: How the World's Biggest Rocket Bounced Back from Epic Failures

After months of explosive setbacks, Flight 10 proves Elon Musk's Approach to Building a Mars rocket can actually work

On August 26, 2025, at 7:30 p.m. ET, something remarkable happened in the South Texas sky. SpaceX's massive Starship rocket—the same vehicle that had exploded, disintegrated, or failed spectacularly on its previous three attempts this year—finally lived up to its promise.

For one magical hour, Ship 37 and its Super Heavy booster performed flawlessly. The rocket deployed its first-ever payload of dummy satellites, restarted its engines in space, and splashed down exactly where it was supposed to in the Indian Ocean. After months of fiery failures, SpaceX had achieved what company officials called a mission where "every major objective was met."

It was a stunning comeback for the world's most ambitious rocket program—and a reminder that sometimes, the most spectacular explosions really do lead to the greatest breakthroughs.

The Road to Redemption: A Year of Spectacular Failures

To understand why Flight 10's success was so significant, you need to appreciate just how spectacularly wrong things had been going for Starship in 2025.

Flight 7 (January 16, 2025): The Vibration Catastrophe

The year started with promise. Flight 7 successfully lifted off from SpaceX's Starbase facility in Texas, with all 33 booster engines firing perfectly. The Super Heavy booster performed its job beautifully, separating from the upper stage and even managing to be caught by the launch tower's giant mechanical arms—a feat that still looks like something from a sci-fi movie.

But then things went sideways. About eight minutes into flight, the Starship upper stage began experiencing what SpaceX delicately calls "harmonic response"—violent vibrations that caused propellant to leak inside the vehicle. The leaked fuel mixed with oxygen and ignited, creating a fire that knocked out several engines one by one.

Contact with Ship 33 was lost as it flew over the Caribbean, and debris was later spotted falling over the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Super Heavy booster's success was overshadowed by the upper stage's fiery demise.

What Went Right: Perfect liftoff, successful stage separation, flawless booster recovery and catch What Went Wrong: Harmonic vibrations caused propellant leaks and engine failures in the upper stage

Flight 8 (March 6, 2025): Hardware Havoc

Two months later, SpaceX tried again with Flight 8, confident they had solved the vibration issues. Once again, the massive rocket lifted off successfully, and once again, the Super Heavy booster performed like a champion, returning to be caught by the launch tower.

But at almost exactly the same point in the flight—around eight minutes after liftoff—disaster struck again. This time, a "hardware failure" in one of the Raptor engines caused fuel to mix and ignite where it absolutely shouldn't have. The resulting explosion was visible from Florida to the Bahamas, with debris streaking across the sky like meteors.

Ground stops were issued at major airports including Miami and Orlando as chunks of the rocket fell into the Atlantic Ocean. Despite not being commanded to self-destruct, the rocket's automated safety systems likely triggered the explosion to prevent a more dangerous situation.

What Went Right: Another perfect launch and booster recovery What Went Wrong: Engine hardware failure led to propellant mixing and automatic vehicle destruction

Flight 9 (May 27, 2025): So Close, Yet So Far

By May, SpaceX had made significant modifications based on lessons from the previous failures. Flight 9 marked a historic first—the reuse of a Super Heavy booster, with 29 of its 33 engines flying for the second time.

For a moment, it seemed like SpaceX had cracked the code. The Starship upper stage successfully completed its ascent burn and reached space—a major milestone that had eluded the previous two flights. But during the coast phase, about 30 minutes into the mission, the vehicle began experiencing propellant leaks that caused it to lose attitude control.

Unable to maintain its orientation, Ship 35 started tumbling through space. Its payload bay doors failed to open, preventing the deployment of dummy Starlink satellites. As the vehicle began its uncontrolled reentry over the Indian Ocean, it broke apart and disintegrated, while the reused booster was lost during its landing attempt in the Gulf of Mexico.

What Went Right: First successful reuse of a Super Heavy booster, upper stage completed full ascent burn and reached space What Went Wrong: Fuel tank pressurization system failure caused attitude control loss and vehicle breakup

The June Explosion: When Testing Goes Boom

Just when it seemed like SpaceX was making progress, disaster struck on the ground. On June 18, Ship 36—the vehicle originally slated for Flight 10—exploded during a routine static fire test at Starbase. The blast, visible for miles and captured on livestreams, was caused by the failure of a composite pressure vessel in the vehicle's nose cone.

The explosion not only destroyed the $100 million vehicle but also damaged SpaceX's test infrastructure, forcing a complete redesign of safety procedures and delaying Flight 10 by two months.

The Starship Dream: One Rocket to Rule Them All

But first, let's understand what makes this rocket so special. Starship isn't just another launch vehicle—it's Elon Musk's master key to the cosmos. This stainless steel behemoth is designed to be the Swiss Army knife of space travel: hauling satellites to orbit, ferrying astronauts to the Moon, and eventually carrying up to 100 people to Mars.

"To put it simply, it's Elon's answer to starting SpaceX in the first place," explains Lauren Grush, Bloomberg's space reporter who has covered the company for years. "That's the primary vehicle that he wants to use to send people to Mars and start a self-sustaining settlement there."

Standing taller than the Statue of Liberty at 400 feet, Starship consists of two parts: the Super Heavy booster with 33 Raptor engines that provides the initial thrust, and the Starship upper stage with six more engines that continues the journey to space. Unlike every rocket before it, the entire system is designed to be completely reusable, landing back on Earth like something from a science fiction movie.

If it works as planned, Starship could reduce launch costs from thousands of dollars per kilogram to just $10-20 per kilogram—a price reduction that would make space tourism accessible to ordinary people and enable massive projects like Mars colonies.

The Redemption Flight That Changed Everything

After two weather delays and one technical glitch, Flight 10 launched on its third attempt from SpaceX's Starbase facility in South Texas. What followed was a masterclass in controlled chaos and engineering precision.

The Perfect Launch: All 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster roared to life simultaneously, pushing the 400-foot rocket away from Earth with 16.5 million pounds of thrust. Though one engine failed during ascent, the remaining 32 compensated perfectly—exactly as designed.

First-Ever Payload Success: After reaching space, Ship 37 opened its payload bay doors and deployed eight Starlink satellite simulators using what SpaceX calls its "PEZ dispenser" mechanism. Video from inside the vehicle showed the metal deployment system methodically ratcheting up and ejecting each dummy satellite into the void. SpaceX engineers could be heard cheering on the live webcast as each simulator tumbled away—the first time Starship had ever successfully deployed a payload.

Space Maneuvers: The vehicle then demonstrated a crucial capability for future missions by successfully relighting one of its Raptor engines in space—a two-second burst that proved Starship could perform orbital adjustments and controlled deorbit burns.

Controlled Chaos on Reentry: Even the mission's "failures" were instructive successes. During the fiery return through Earth's atmosphere, one of the vehicle's control flaps was damaged and part of the engine compartment's protective skirt exploded. But Ship 37 maintained control throughout its descent, looking decidedly "toasty" but still achieving its planned splashdown in the Indian Ocean.

The Super Heavy booster, meanwhile, executed its own controlled descent into the Gulf of Mexico, even after deliberately shutting down one of its landing engines to test failure scenarios.

"Splashdown confirmed! Congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on an exciting tenth flight test of Starship!" SpaceX announced triumphantly, marking the end of a streak of failures that had raised serious questions about the program's viability.

The Bigger Picture: Why Starship Matters

Beyond the spectacular explosions and engineering challenges, Starship represents something unprecedented in spaceflight: a fully reusable super heavy-lift vehicle. If SpaceX can perfect the technology, it could reduce the cost of reaching space from thousands of dollars per kilogram to potentially just $10-20 per kilogram.

That price reduction would unlock possibilities that currently exist only in science fiction: space tourism for the middle class, massive orbital manufacturing facilities, asteroid mining operations, and yes, eventually, cities on Mars.

NASA has already bet heavily on Starship's success, awarding SpaceX a $4 billion contract to use the vehicle as the lunar lander for its Artemis program. The space agency plans to use Starship to return astronauts to the Moon's surface for the first time since 1972, but the repeated test failures have raised questions about whether the 2027 timeline is achievable.

The Method Behind the Madness

SpaceX's approach to rocket development might seem reckless to outsiders—why keep flying rockets that explode? But there's a method to the madness that sets the company apart from traditional aerospace.

"SpaceX has this kind of 'fly fast, fail, fix, repeat' approach where they like to fly as often as possible, knowing that they might actually have an issue and an explosion, and then taking that information, learning from it and incorporating it into the next flight," explains Grush.

This philosophy, while nerve-wracking to watch, has proven remarkably effective. SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, now one of the most reliable launch vehicles in the world, went through its own series of early failures before becoming a commercial success.

After the latest setbacks, SpaceX implemented what it calls "the surge"—reassigning 20% of its experienced Falcon 9 engineers to the Starship program to focus on reliability and component testing. It's a common tactic at Musk companies: when something needs extra attention, resources get redistributed quickly.

What's Next: Building on Success

Flight 10's success has given SpaceX and the space community a much-needed confidence boost. "Great work by the SpaceX team!!" Elon Musk celebrated on social media, while NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy praised the achievement: "Flight 10's success paves the way for the Starship Human Landing System that will bring American astronauts back to the Moon on Artemis III."

The successful payload deployment is particularly significant—it opens the door for SpaceX to begin deploying its next-generation Starlink satellites using Starship, potentially at lower cost than their current Falcon 9 rockets. This could be a game-changer for SpaceX's business model, allowing them to rapidly expand their satellite constellation while reducing launch costs.

Looking ahead, SpaceX plans to launch again in approximately eight weeks, with the company expected to maintain Musk's promised cadence of launching "every 3 to 4 weeks." However, the next major milestone—orbital refueling demonstrations—has been pushed to next year, as Musk confirmed during Flight 10's webcast that "no one has ever demonstrated propellant transfer" and SpaceX won't attempt it until 2026.

The company is also preparing to debut its larger "Version 3" Starship by the end of 2026, promising even greater payload capacity and improved systems for the eventual Mars missions.

The Optimist's View

Despite the setbacks, industry observers remain reluctant to bet against SpaceX. The company has a track record of achieving seemingly impossible goals, from landing rocket boosters vertically to building the world's largest satellite constellation.

"I never bet against SpaceX," says Grush. "Their M.O. is kind of proving the haters wrong. When they were first formed, they made all of these big promises about disrupting the industry, and a lot of legacy space companies scoffed at their claims. But then look at what they have achieved."

The company has indeed revolutionized spaceflight, bringing down launch costs, achieving partial reusability with Falcon 9, and becoming NASA's primary launch provider. This track record suggests that Starship's current struggles may be temporary growing pains rather than fundamental flaws.

The Bottom Line

Flight 10 proved that SpaceX's "fail fast, fix, repeat" philosophy can eventually pay off. After months of explosive setbacks and growing skepticism about whether Starship's ambitious design was fundamentally flawed, Ship 37 delivered a near-flawless performance that achieved every major test objective.

"Every major objective was met, providing critical data to inform designs of the next generation Starship and Super Heavy," SpaceX announced triumphantly after the mission. The successful payload deployment, in-space engine relight, and controlled splashdowns marked "a significant step forward in developing the world's first fully reusable launch vehicle."

While challenges remain—the heat shield damage and engine compartment issues during reentry show there's still work to be done—Flight 10 demonstrated that Starship's core concept is sound. The vehicle can launch massive payloads, deploy them successfully, maneuver in space, and return to Earth in a controlled manner.

Whether Starship ultimately succeeds in its grand ambitions of making humans a multiplanetary species remains to be seen, but Flight 10 has proven that those dreams are built on solid engineering foundations. Sometimes the most spectacular explosions really do lead to the greatest breakthroughs—and sometimes, the rocket actually lands where it's supposed to.

---

Sources and Citations

1. Federal Aviation Administration. "FAA Closes SpaceX Starship Flight 9 Mishap Investigation, Flight 10 Can Proceed." Press Release, August 15, 2025. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-flight-9-mishap-investigation-flight-10-can-proceed
2. Grush, Lauren. Bloomberg News Interview Transcript. "SpaceX Starship Program Analysis." Bloomberg Terminal, August 2025.
3. Spaceflight Now. "SpaceX schedules 10th test flight for Starship, details recent setbacks." August 16, 2025. https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/08/16/spacex-schedules-starship-flight-10-details-recent-setbacks/
4. Space.com. "SpaceX completes investigation into recent Starship failures, clears the way for Flight 10." August 19, 2025. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/private-spaceflight/spacex-completes-investigation-starship-flight-9-failures-clears-the-way-for-flight-10
5. ABC News. "SpaceX's Starship faces 10th test after previous flights end in explosions." August 22, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/spacexs-starship-faces-10th-test-after-previous-flights/story?id=124822338
6. ABC News. "SpaceX loses another Starship in latest launch, with debris seen streaking across the sky." March 7, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/spacex-attempting-starship-launch-today/story?id=119509022
7. ABC News. "In 9th flight test, SpaceX's Starship experiences 'rapid unscheduled disassembly'." May 28, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/spacex-launch-9th-flight-test-starship-spacecraft-after/story?id=122204009
8. NASASpaceFlight.com. "FAA approves Starship Flight 10 after mishap probe, eyes August 24 launch." August 16, 2025. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/08/faa-flight-10-mishap-probe-august-24/
9. NASASpaceFlight.com. "SpaceX starts 2025 with Falcon records and Starship problems." April 15, 2025. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/04/spacex-roundup-q12025/
10. NASASpaceFlight.com. "Halfway through 2025, SpaceX breaks Falcon records and struggles with Starship." July 9, 2025. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/07/spacex-roundup-q22025/
11. Research & Development World. "SpaceX's Starship explosions reveal the high-cost of 'fail fast' R&D." June 20, 2025. https://www.rdworldonline.com/spacexs-starship-explosions-reveal-the-high-cost-of-fail-fast-rd/
12. The Washington Post. "SpaceX's latest Starship failure casts doubt on NASA's 2027 moon landing." May 30, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025/05/29/spacex-starship-launch-nasa-moon-landing/
13. Wikipedia. "SpaceX Starship." Last updated August 25, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship
14. Wikipedia. "List of Starship launches." Last updated August 23, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches
15. Wikipedia. "Starship flight test 10." Last updated August 24, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_flight_test_10
16. Tesla Oracle. "The FAA gives SpaceX green light for Starship Flight 10 launch test in August." August 16, 2025. https://www.teslaoracle.com/2025/08/16/the-faa-gives-spacex-green-light-for-starship-flight-10-launch-test-in-august/
17. Flight 10 Success Coverage:

• NPR. "SpaceX's Starship has successful 10th flight test." August 26, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/26/g-s1-85541/starship-space-x-tenth-flight
• CNN. "SpaceX's troubled Starship prototype pulls off successful flight after months of explosive mishaps." August 26, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/science/live-news/spacex-starship-flight-10-launch-08-26-25
• Space.com. "SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight in stunning comeback." August 26, 2025. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/private-spaceflight/spacex-launches-starship-flight-10-critical-test-flight-video
• Space.com. "Starship Mars rocket met 'every major objective' on epic Flight 10 test launch, SpaceX says." August 27, 2025. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/starship-mars-rocket-met-every-major-objective-on-epic-flight-10-launch-spacex-says

19. Technical Analysis and Payload Deployment:

• TESLARATI. "SpaceX aces Starship test flight 10 with successful payload deployment." August 27, 2025. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-aces-starship-test-flight-10-successful-payload-deployment/
• NASASpaceFlight.com. "Ship 37 Completes the Redemption Arc and Lands in the Indian Ocean." August 27, 2025. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/08/flight-10-ship-37-block-2/

SpaceX Starship Test Flights - Popular Science Article | Claude | Claude

SpaceX Starship Test Flights - Popular Science Article | Claude | Claude

Book authors settle copyright lawsuit with AI company Anthropic

Anthropic Reaches Historic Copyright Settlement with Authors in Landmark AI Case

Bottom Line Up Front

Three authors have settled what could have been the largest copyright class action ever certified—potentially representing up to 7 million authors whose books were allegedly pirated by Anthropic for AI training. The settlement avoids a December trial that could have resulted in hundreds of billions in damages and establishes the first industry precedent for compensating creators whose work was used without permission. While financial terms remain undisclosed, the agreement likely signals a shift toward licensing frameworks that could fundamentally reshape how AI companies acquire training data.

---

SAN FRANCISCO — In a development that could reshape the artificial intelligence industry's approach to copyrighted content, Anthropic has reached a settlement agreement with book authors in a class-action copyright infringement lawsuit that alleged the AI company engaged in "large-scale theft" of literary works to train its Claude chatbot.

The settlement, announced Tuesday, represents the first resolution in a series of high-stakes cases that will determine whether AI companies can continue training their models on copyrighted material without permission—or must begin paying licensing fees that could fundamentally alter the economics of the industry.

Settlement Brings Swift Resolution

Both sides have "negotiated a proposed class settlement," according to a federal appeals court filing, with terms expected to be finalized next week. The judge has given the parties a September 5 deadline to file requests for preliminary approval of the settlement.

A lawyer for the authors, Justin Nelson, called it a "historic settlement will benefit all class members," while Anthropic declined to comment on the deal. The financial terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, but legal experts suggest it could set a precedent for how authors are compensated in future licensing deals.

"The authors' side will be reasonably happy with this result, because they've essentially forced Anthropic into making a settlement," Luke McDonagh, an associate professor of law at LSE, told Fortune. "This might be the first domino to fall."

The Original Allegations

The 2024 class action lawsuit was brought by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who alleged Anthropic used the contents of millions of digitized copyrighted books to train the large language models behind Claude, including at least two works by each plaintiff.

The trio alleged that Anthropic's practices amounted to "large-scale theft," claiming the San Francisco-based company "seeks to profit from strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity behind each one of those works." They argued that rather than obtaining permission and paying fair compensation, Anthropic simply pirated their creative works.

The case was the first certified class action against an AI company over the use of copyrighted materials, and the quick settlement—coming just one month after the judge ruled the case could proceed to trial as a class action—represents a significant victory for content creators.

Class Action Authority: How Three Authors Can Speak for Millions

The settlement's authority to bind potentially millions of authors stems from the federal court's certification of the largest copyright class action ever approved. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, three individual plaintiffs gained the legal right to represent a class that could include up to 7 million authors whose books were allegedly downloaded from pirate libraries Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi).

To achieve class certification, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate four key requirements: numerosity (the class is too large for individual lawsuits to be practical), commonality (shared legal questions affect all class members), typicality (the named plaintiffs' claims are representative of the broader class), and adequacy (the representatives can fairly protect all class members' interests).

Judge William Alsup found these requirements met, noting that with potentially 7 million affected works, individual litigation would be "impracticable" and that common questions about Anthropic's systematic downloading from pirate sites affected all class members similarly. The court appointed experienced class counsel from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Susman Godfrey to represent the entire class.

Crucially, class members who meet specific criteria—including legal ownership of copyrights, ISBN/ASIN numbers, and timely copyright registration—are automatically included in the settlement unless they actively opt out. As the Authors Guild explains, "You do not need to do anything to be a member of the class," though affected authors are encouraged to provide contact information to ensure they receive notices about the settlement.

The class certification was based on Anthropic's systematic downloading of approximately 5 million books from LibGen and 2 million from PiLiMi, with the court finding that the companies' detailed metadata catalogs—containing ISBN numbers, titles, authors, and hash values—provide sufficient information to identify affected works and their copyright holders. This represents a departure from traditional copyright cases involving individual works, instead addressing industrial-scale copying of entire digital libraries.

Court Creates Complex Legal Landscape

Before the settlement, the case had already produced a landmark legal ruling that will likely influence AI copyright litigation for years to come. In June, Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued the first federal court order to meaningfully apply fair use doctrine to AI training on copyrighted books.

Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of legally acquired books to train their AI model was acceptable under fair use doctrine, calling the AI system's distilling from thousands of written works "quintessentially transformative." He wrote: "Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic's [AI large language models] trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them—but to turn a hard corner and create something different."

However, the judge made a crucial distinction that likely drove the settlement negotiations. While training on legally acquired books qualified as fair use, Alsup found that Anthropic had "downloaded for free millions of copyrighted books in digital form from pirate sites on the internet" as part of its effort "to amass a central library of 'all the books in the world.'"

This use of pirated content could not be defended as fair use, the judge ruled, allowing the authors' claims to proceed to trial. The ruling potentially exposed Anthropic to massive damages—with copyright law allowing for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work and the court finding that Anthropic may have illegally downloaded as many as 7 million books.

Understanding Fair Use in the AI Era

The Anthropic case sits at the center of a broader legal battle over how decades-old copyright doctrine applies to revolutionary new technology. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works without permission, balancing creators' rights against the public interest in innovation and free expression.

Courts analyze four statutory factors, but in practice often emphasize whether the use is "transformative"—adding new meaning or purpose rather than merely substituting for the original work—and whether it harms the market for the original.

Digital Precedents Favor Transformation

The current AI fair use debate builds on landmark cases from the early internet era. In Authors Guild v. HathiTrust (2014), the Second Circuit established that "the creation of a full‐text searchable database is a quintessentially transformative use," allowing university libraries to digitize millions of books for research and accessibility purposes.

Similarly, in Authors Guild v. Google Books (2015), courts ruled that Google's digitization of books for search functionality constituted fair use because it was "highly transformative," enabling entirely new capabilities rather than replacing the original works.

AI developers cite these precedents, arguing their use of copyrighted material is similarly transformative for training purposes. The Library Copyright Alliance supports this position, stating that "based on well-established precedent, the ingestion of copyrighted works to create large language models or other AI training databases generally is a fair use."

Competing Court Interpretations

However, recent rulings reveal significant judicial disagreement about how fair use applies to AI training. Just days before the Anthropic ruling, District Judge Vince Chhabria sided with Meta in a separate case brought by 13 authors including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, but used markedly different legal reasoning.

While Chhabria also found that generative AI was "necessarily a transformative use," he focused his analysis on whether Meta's training impacted the market for the original works rather than the transformative nature of the process itself. Unlike Judge Alsup, Chhabria found that using pirated content did not automatically disqualify fair use protection.

In contrast, the first major AI copyright ruling to reject fair use came in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, where a federal court found that using copyrighted legal materials to train a competing AI research tool was "commercial and not transformative" because it served the same purpose as the original works.

Copyright Office Weighs In

The U.S. Copyright Office's May 2025 report on AI and copyright concluded that "there will not be a single answer regarding whether the unauthorized use of copyright materials to train AI models is fair use." The office identified a spectrum from likely fair use (noncommercial research that doesn't reproduce original works) to likely infringement (copying expressive works from pirated sources to generate competing content).

Significantly, the report rejected AI companies' analogy to human learning, noting that "this analogy rests on the faulty premise that fair use is a defense for all acts if those acts are performed for the purpose of learning."

Industry-Wide Legal Battles Intensify

The Anthropic settlement comes amid an unprecedented wave of copyright litigation targeting major AI companies, with cases filed against all the top players including Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta. Plaintiffs range from individual artists and authors to large companies like Getty Images and the New York Times.

Music Industry Escalates Pressure

The music industry has emerged as particularly aggressive in challenging AI companies. Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have sued AI music generators Suno AI and Udio AI for alleged copyright infringement—the first lawsuit targeting audio-based generative AI.

Universal Music Group has also filed a separate lawsuit against Anthropic, alleging the company illegally trained its AI programs on copyrighted lyrics. Meanwhile, Meta and Universal have expanded their partnership to address unauthorized AI-generated music content, reflecting growing industry efforts to balance innovation with creator rights.

Global Publishers Fight Back

Japanese newspapers have emerged as major challengers to AI companies' data practices. Japan's largest newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, sued Perplexity AI in August, followed by Nikkei and Asahi filing a joint lawsuit seeking ¥2.2 billion ($15 million) in damages each.

These publishers allege that Perplexity ignored their robots.txt files designed to prevent automated content scraping and "repeatedly served up the content in response to user queries" without authorization. The cases represent the first major copyright challenges by Japanese media companies against AI firms.

Search Engine Copyright Battles

Perplexity AI faces mounting pressure from publishers worldwide. The company has received cease-and-desist letters from The New York Times, the BBC, and Condé Nast, while News Corp successfully fought off Perplexity's attempt to dismiss their copyright lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds.

The Perplexity cases focus on "retrieval-augmented generation" (RAG) technology, which differs from traditional AI training by accessing and copying content in real-time rather than during a one-time training process. Publishers allege this approach "repackages original copyrighted works into verbatim or near verbatim summaries."

Implications for AI Industry Future

The Anthropic settlement may signal a shift toward negotiated resolutions rather than prolonged litigation, potentially creating a framework for how AI companies compensate creators for training data.

"Some companies are already engaging in licensing content from publishers. So this may push us forward towards a situation in which the AI companies reach settlements that effectively retrospectively pay license fees for what they've already used," McDonagh said. "Perhaps [it's] the beginning of a licensing future for the AI industry, where authors can be paid for the use of their copyrighted works in the training of AI."

However, the path forward remains uncertain. AI developers have argued that mandatory licensing schemes would be "too expensive and cumbersome," potentially stifling innovation. Rights holders counter that licensing costs should be seen as "the price of doing business" and that the burden of obtaining permission should not excuse unauthorized use.

The stakes are enormous. As one legal observer noted, "The outcomes of these cases are set to have an enormous impact on the future of AI. In effect, they will decide whether or not model makers can continue ordering up a free lunch."

Legal scholars anticipate that "over the next few months and years, lawsuits will force courts to set new precedent in this area and draw the contours of copyright law as applied to generative AI." With dozens of similar cases pending and the Supreme Court potentially called upon to provide definitive guidance, the legal landscape for AI training on copyrighted content remains in flux.

The Anthropic settlement, while historic, represents just the beginning of a broader reckoning between the AI industry and content creators over the fundamental question of who owns and controls the information that powers artificial intelligence.

---

Sources

Primary Court Documents and Legal Sources:

1. Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:23-cv-07024-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2025) - The landmark federal case establishing fair use precedent for AI training
2. Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) - Companion case with different fair use reasoning
3. Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613-UNA (D. Del. Feb. 2025) - First major AI copyright ruling rejecting fair use
4. Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014) - Foundational digital library fair use precedent
5. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) - Google Books fair use victory
6. U.S. Copyright Office Report: "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Report" (May 2025) - Official government position on AI training fair use

News Reports and Analysis:

7. NPR. "Federal judge rules in AI company Anthropic's favor in landmark copyright infringement lawsuit brought by authors." June 26, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25/nx-s1-5445242/federal-rules-in-ai-companys-favor-in-landmark-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-authors-bartz-graeber-wallace-johnson-anthropic
8. North Carolina Lawyers Weekly. "Anthropic settles copyright lawsuit with book authors." August 27, 2025. https://nclawyersweekly.com/2025/08/27/anthropic-settles-copyright-lawsuit-authors/
9. Fortune. "Anthropic landmark copyright settlement with authors may set a precedent for the whole industry." August 27, 2025. https://fortune.com/2025/08/27/anthropic-settlement-with-authors-may-be-the-first-domino-to-fall-in-ai-copyright-battles/
10. Euronews. "Anthropic settles AI copyright lawsuit with book authors." August 27, 2025. https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/08/27/anthropic-settles-ai-copyright-lawsuit-with-book-authors
11. PYMNTS.com. "Anthropic and Authors Settle Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Targeting AI Training." August 26, 2025. https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2025/anthropic-and-authors-settle-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-targeting-ai-training/
12. ABC News. "Book authors settle copyright lawsuit with AI company Anthropic." August 26, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/book-authors-settle-copyright-lawsuit-ai-company-anthropic-125003388
13. U.S. News & World Report. "Book Authors Settle Copyright Lawsuit With AI Company Anthropic." August 26, 2025. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2025-08-26/book-authors-settle-copyright-lawsuit-with-ai-company-anthropic
14. Hartford Courant. "Book authors settle copyright lawsuit with AI company Anthropic." August 26, 2025. https://www.courant.com/2025/08/26/authors-anthropic-settlement/
15. Startup News. "Book authors settle copyright lawsuit with AI company Anthropic." August 27, 2025. https://startupnews.fyi/2025/08/27/book-authors-settle-copyright-lawsuit-with-ai-company-anthropic/
16. Insurance Journal. "Anthropic Settles Class Action From Authors Alleging Copyright Infringement." August 27, 2025. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2025/08/27/837098.htm

Legal Analysis and Commentary:

17. Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Two Courts Rule On Generative AI and Fair Use — One Gets It Right." July 11, 2025. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/two-courts-rule-generative-ai-and-fair-use-one-gets-it-right
18. Ballard Spahr. "Novel Ruling Offers Framework for 'Fair Use' of Copyrighted Material for Training AI Systems." July 2025. https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2025/07/novel-ruling-offers-framework-for-fair-use-of-copyrighted-material-for-training-ai-systems
19. Davis+Gilbert LLP. "Court Rules AI Training on Copyrighted Works Is Not Fair Use — What It Means for Generative AI." February 27, 2025. https://www.dglaw.com/court-rules-ai-training-on-copyrighted-works-is-not-fair-use-what-it-means-for-generative-ai/
20. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. "Copyright Office Weighs In on AI Training and Fair Use." May 2025. https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/05/copyright-office-report
21. Crowell & Moring LLP. "AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use." June 2025. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/ai-companies-prevail-in-path-breaking-decisions-on-fair-use
22. Kluwer Copyright Blog. "Is Generative AI Fair Use of Copyright Works? NYT v. OpenAI." February 29, 2024. https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/29/is-generative-ai-fair-use-of-copyright-works-nyt-v-openai/
23. Quinn Emanuel. "Lead Article: The Fair Use Frontier: Copyright Law in the Age of AI and Machine Learning." February 2, 2024. https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/lead-article-the-fair-use-frontier-copyright-law-in-the-age-of-ai-and-machine-learning/
24. BitLaw. "Fair Use and the Training of AI Models on Copyrighted Works." 2025. https://www.bitlaw.com/ai/AI-training-fair-use.html
25. Stanford HAI. "Reexamining 'Fair Use' in the Age of AI." 2025. https://hai.stanford.edu/news/reexamining-fair-use-age-ai

Industry and Academic Sources:

26. Association of Research Libraries. "Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use." January 23, 2024. https://www.arl.org/blog/training-generative-ai-models-on-copyrighted-works-is-fair-use/
27. Association of Research Libraries. "Authors Guild v. HathiTrust Litigation Ends in Victory for Fair Use." April 16, 2019. https://www.arl.org/news/authors-guild-v-hathitrust-litigation-ends-in-victory-for-fair-use/
28. Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Authors Guild v. HathiTrust." March 9, 2018. https://www.eff.org/cases/authors-guild-v-hathitrust
29. Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Digitizing Books Is Fair Use: Author's Guild v. HathiTrust." October 11, 2012. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/authors-guild-vhathitrustdecision
30. The Media Institute. "Authors Guild v. HathiTrust: Fair Use Comes to Digital Book Repositories." August 6, 2014. https://www.mediainstitute.org/2014/08/06/authors-guild-v-hathitrust-fair-use-comes-to-digital-book-repositories/

Music Industry and Related Lawsuits:

31. Crowell & Moring LLP. "Major American Music Labels Sue Generative AI Music Platforms in First Case of Its Kind Over AI Audio." 2025. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/major-american-music-labels-sue-generative-ai-music-platforms-in-first-case-of-its-kind-over-ai-audio
32. CoinGeek. "Universal Music Group files copyright infringement lawsuit vs Anthropic AI." June 5, 2025. https://coingeek.com/universal-music-group-files-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-vs-anthropic-ai/
33. Perplexity AI. "Meta and Universal Expand Deal to Tackle AI Music." 2025. https://www.perplexity.ai/page/meta-and-universal-expand-deal-UVp_uTtVT5aTN5vJEM21WQ

International and Perplexity Cases:

34. Nieman Journalism Lab. "Japan's largest newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, sues AI startup Perplexity for copyright violations." August 11, 2025. https://www.niemanlab.org/2025/08/japans-largest-newspaper-yomiuri-shimbun-sues-perplexity-for-copyright-violations/
35. The Register. "Asahi, Nikkei sue Perplexity AI for copyright infringement." August 26, 2025. https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/perplexity_asahi_nikkei_lawsuits

Comprehensive Legal Timelines:

36. Sustainable Tech Partner. "Generative AI Lawsuits Timeline: Legal Cases vs. OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia, Perplexity, Intel and More." August 25, 2025. https://sustainabletechpartner.com/topics/ai/generative-ai-lawsuit-timeline/
37. Copyright Alliance. "AI Lawsuit Developments in 2024: A Year in Review." May 14, 2025. https://copyrightalliance.org/ai-lawsuit-developments-2024-review/
38. MIT Technology Review. "What comes next for AI copyright lawsuits?" July 1, 2025. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/01/1119486/ai-copyright-meta-anthropic/
39. Slate. "Why Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates sued Meta over copyright." June 30, 2025. https://slate.com/technology/2025/06/ai-copyright-lawsuits-anthropic-meta-openai-google.html

Legal Databases and Court Records:

40. Justia. "Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, No. 12-4547 (2d Cir. 2014)." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-4547/12-4547-2014-06-10.html
41. Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center. "Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust." January 31, 2023. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/authors-guild-inc-v-hathitrust/
42. U.S. Copyright Office. "Fair Use Index - Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014)." https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-hathitrust-2dcir2014.pdf
43. Davis Wright Tremaine. "2nd Circuit Issues Its Fair Use Ruling in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust." June 2014. https://www.dwt.com/insights/2014/06/2nd-circuit-issues-its-fair-use-ruling-in-authors
44. Wikipedia. "Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc." March 13, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
45. Wikipedia. "Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust." May 7, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._HathiTrust
46. Book authors settle copyright lawsuit with AI company Anthropic

Argonne Lab's EV battery breakthrough to cut energy use by half

Revolutionary Electrode Processing Technologies Promise to Transform Battery Manufacturing

New methods could cut energy consumption in half while dramatically reducing factory footprints

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: Advanced electrode processing technologies could revolutionize battery manufacturing by cutting energy consumption up to 65%, reducing factory footprints by 85%, and eliminating toxic solvents—while potentially improving battery safety through better thermal management. Dry processing leads with 46% energy savings and is closest to commercialization, followed by radiation curing that offers the most dramatic space and energy reductions. Metal fleece electrodes developed at Max Planck Institute enable 10x thicker electrodes with 85% higher energy density and faster charging. These innovations could help Western manufacturers compete with Asian producers while addressing critical fire safety concerns through improved electrode architectures and elimination of flammable manufacturing processes.

The global transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy storage has placed unprecedented demands on lithium-ion battery manufacturing. Now, a comprehensive review by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory reveals that advanced electrode processing technologies could revolutionize the industry by cutting energy consumption by more than half while dramatically shrinking manufacturing footprints.

Published in the February 2025 edition of Nature Reviews Clean Technology, the study represents the most thorough analysis to date of emerging alternatives to conventional battery electrode manufacturing. The research, conducted in collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Case Western Reserve University, identifies four promising technologies that could address the industry's most pressing challenges: excessive energy consumption, environmental hazards, and the need for massive manufacturing facilities.

The Problem with Conventional Manufacturing

Traditional lithium-ion battery production relies on a complex wet processing method that has remained largely unchanged for decades. The process begins with mixing electrochemically active materials, conductive additives, and binding agents in N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), a toxic organic solvent, to create a slurry. This mixture is then coated onto metal foil substrates and dried in massive, energy-intensive ovens that must operate continuously to remove the solvent.

"The drying process that removes the solvent is very energy-intensive, adding significant cost," explains Jianlin Li, Argonne's energy storage and conversion program manager and co-author of the study. "To minimize environmental impacts, the solvent needs to be recovered, requiring additional equipment and operational costs."

The necessity of safely handling and recovering NMP adds layers of complexity and expense to battery manufacturing. Beyond the environmental and safety concerns, the energy requirements for solvent removal represent a substantial portion of overall manufacturing costs—a critical issue as the industry scales to meet projected demand that could grow dramatically over the next five years.

Dry Processing: The Front-Runner

Among the four advanced technologies analyzed, dry processing emerges as the most promising candidate for near-term commercialization. This revolutionary approach eliminates solvents entirely by directly compressing a mixed powder of battery materials into electrode films using specialized rollers.

"Different companies may have different preferences on these advanced processing technologies depending on the particular battery applications they are focused on," said Li. "According to our analysis, dry processing has the fewest remaining technical barriers and appears to be the closest to large-scale commercialization."

The advantages are striking: dry processing can reduce manufacturing costs by 11% and energy consumption by 46% compared to conventional methods. Several leading battery manufacturers have already begun investigating this technology for commercial applications.

However, challenges remain. The primary technical hurdle involves binder stability, particularly in carbon-based negative electrodes where electronic conductivity can be compromised. Lead author Runming Tao, an Argonne postdoctoral appointee, suggests that "these challenges could be addressed with research on materials with different particle sizes, shapes and structures." Equipment modifications to improve powder mixing before compression represent another crucial research need.

Early experimental results from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in collaboration with industry partner Navitas Systems, have demonstrated the technology's potential. Dry-processed electrodes showed "superb" capacity retention after extended use, with the ability to create electrodes up to 10 times thicker than conventional alternatives while maintaining excellent mechanical strength and flexibility needed for mass production.

Aqueous Processing: A Gentler Alternative

Advanced wet processing represents a more incremental but immediately implementable improvement over current methods. By simply replacing the toxic NMP solvent with water, manufacturers can achieve a 25% reduction in energy costs while producing uniform electrodes with good electrochemical performance.

The technology leverages existing manufacturing equipment, making it attractive for facilities seeking incremental improvements without complete process overhauls. However, the approach still requires energy-intensive oven drying, and certain battery materials may need modification to improve their compatibility with water-based systems.

Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Battery Manufacturing R&D Facility have made significant advances in aqueous processing for various active materials, including breakthrough work on cobalt-free cathode materials that could further reduce costs and supply chain dependencies.

Radiation Curing: The Radical Transformation

Perhaps the most dramatic departure from conventional processing comes in the form of radiation curing, which uses ultraviolet light or electron beams to rapidly solidify specialized slurries. This approach promises the most substantial benefits: up to 65% reduction in energy costs and an astounding 85% decrease in required factory floor space.

The technology works by applying high-energy radiation to slurries containing small precursor molecules, causing them to link together into large polymer networks almost instantaneously. "With electron beam curing, the polymerization can happen in less than one second," notes research from Oak Ridge National Laboratory published in earlier studies.

Electron beam processing has proven particularly effective for creating thick electrodes—a critical advantage for high-energy-density applications. Researchers have successfully demonstrated the production of electrodes with areal loadings of 25 mg/cm², processed at line speeds of 500 feet per minute. The elimination of solvents and the ability to process thick electrodes at high speeds could transform manufacturing economics.

However, significant research challenges remain. The long-term stability of radiation-cured materials requires further investigation, and the technique may require processing thick electrodes in multiple layers, potentially impacting battery performance. Additionally, electron beam equipment requires substantial capital investment and the development of new safety protocols to manage X-ray generation.

3D Printing: Precision Manufacturing

The fourth technology, 3D printing of electrodes, offers unique advantages for specialized applications. This approach can create highly customized electrode shapes with minimal material waste, making it ideal for niche applications requiring precise geometries or specialized performance characteristics.

Advanced 3D printing techniques such as direct ink writing and material jetting allow for unprecedented control over electrode architecture. Researchers have developed novel acrylate-based battery inks that enable rapid, environmentally friendly processing while maintaining high cross-linked polymerization for enhanced mechanical integrity.

The primary limitations of 3D printing remain its relatively slow manufacturing speed and high equipment costs, making it unsuitable for mass production of consumer batteries. However, for high-value applications such as aerospace, medical devices, or specialized industrial equipment, the technology offers compelling advantages.

Revolutionary Material Advances

Complementing these manufacturing breakthroughs, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research have developed a revolutionary electrode design that could work synergistically with advanced processing technologies. Led by Director Joachim Spatz, the team has created metal fleeces—intricate three-dimensional networks of extremely fine metallic fibers—that serve as current collectors in battery electrodes.

This innovation addresses a fundamental limitation in current battery design: the trade-off between electrode thickness (which determines energy storage) and charging speed. The metal fleeces create what Spatz describes as "motorways for metal ions," allowing lithium ions to move up to 56 times faster than through conventional electrolytes.

Published in ACS Nano in April 2025, the research demonstrates that electrodes can be constructed up to 10 times thicker than current standards while maintaining rapid charge and discharge capabilities. The technology could increase battery energy density by up to 85%, potentially transforming electric vehicle range and performance.

The metal fleece approach offers additional manufacturing advantages that align well with advanced processing technologies. Active materials can be introduced as dry powders directly into the fleece structure, eliminating the need for complex solvent-based coating processes. This could reduce production costs by 30-40% while requiring significantly less factory space.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The convergence of these technologies represents more than incremental improvement—it points toward a fundamental transformation of battery manufacturing. The potential for 40-65% reductions in energy consumption, combined with dramatic decreases in facility size requirements, could reshape the global competitive landscape.

For the United States, these advances offer an opportunity to compete more effectively with established Asian manufacturers who currently dominate global battery production. "With our technology, we have the chance to catch up with Asian manufacturers and be even better," notes Spatz, whose research has already attracted €10 million in funding from investors focused on sustainable transportation.

Environmental benefits extend beyond reduced energy consumption. The elimination of toxic solvents like NMP addresses significant occupational health and environmental concerns. Radiation curing and dry processing produce minimal chemical waste, while the increased efficiency of metal fleece electrodes could reduce the overall material intensity of battery production.

Challenges and Timeline

Despite promising laboratory results, significant hurdles remain before these technologies achieve widespread commercial adoption. Each approach faces distinct technical challenges that require continued research and development investment.

For dry processing, the primary focus remains on developing binders that maintain stability and conductivity in demanding operating conditions. Equipment development for improved powder mixing and compression represents another critical research area.

Radiation curing requires extensive studies of material long-term stability and optimization of processing parameters for different electrode chemistries. The capital costs and safety requirements for electron beam equipment may limit initial adoption to high-value applications.

Metal fleece technology, while promising, requires scaling production methods for ultra-fine metallic fibers and optimizing integration with various active materials. The spin-off company Batene GmbH is working with major automotive manufacturers to address these challenges, with commercial applications expected within the next few years.

Fire Safety and Thermal Runaway Implications

As battery manufacturers pursue higher energy densities and faster production methods, fire safety and thermal runaway prevention have become paramount concerns. Thermal runaway—where battery temperatures can spike from 212°F to 1,800°F in seconds—poses significant risks in manufacturing facilities and end-use applications.

The advanced electrode processing technologies offer several safety advantages over conventional methods. The elimination of toxic, flammable solvents like N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) removes a major fire hazard from manufacturing facilities. Traditional wet processing creates substantial risks during the energy-intensive drying phase, where organic solvents must be carefully managed to prevent ignition.

Dry processing methods provide enhanced thermal stability and safety compared to conventional wet processing. The absence of volatile organic compounds during production reduces both fire risk and toxic gas emissions. Additionally, the ability to create thicker electrodes through dry processing and metal fleece technologies could paradoxically improve safety by reducing the number of interfaces and potential failure points within battery cells.

Metal fleece electrodes offer particular promise for thermal management, as the three-dimensional conductive network can better dissipate heat compared to traditional flat foil designs. The improved electrical conductivity and reduced internal resistance of fleece electrodes could minimize localized heating that often triggers thermal runaway events.

However, manufacturing thicker, higher-energy-density electrodes also requires careful attention to thermal management systems and battery management software to prevent thermal runaway propagation. Battery management systems must monitor cell temperature, pressure, and state of charge more precisely as energy density increases.

Research into advanced fire suppression systems specifically designed for lithium-ion battery manufacturing facilities is accelerating. Traditional suppression agents like water or carbon dioxide prove inadequate for lithium battery fires, driving development of specialized gel-based suppressants and phase-change materials.

The industry is also developing new early warning systems that can detect the onset of thermal runaway before catastrophic failure occurs. These systems monitor gas emissions, temperature gradients, and electrical signatures that precede thermal runaway events.

Looking Forward

The battery manufacturing industry stands at a critical inflection point. As global demand for energy storage continues to accelerate, the successful implementation of these advanced processing technologies could determine which regions and companies lead the next phase of the clean energy transition—while simultaneously addressing critical safety challenges.

"These advanced technologies show great promise to reduce manufacturing costs, which can help lower the prices of grid energy storage and batteries for mobility applications," concludes Tao. The comprehensive review provides manufacturers, researchers, and policymakers with a clear roadmap for prioritizing development efforts and investment decisions while maintaining the highest safety standards.

The convergence of dry processing, radiation curing, aqueous methods, 3D printing, and revolutionary electrode architectures suggests that the future of battery manufacturing will look dramatically different from today's energy-intensive, solvent-dependent processes. Critically, these innovations offer the potential to improve both manufacturing efficiency and operational safety—addressing two of the industry's most pressing concerns as it races to meet the demands of global electrification.

---

Sources

1. Tao, R., Du, Z., Li, J., Gu, Y., & Lyu, X. (2025). Advanced electrode processing for lithium-ion battery manufacturing. Nature Reviews Clean Technology, 1, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-024-00018-w
2. Argonne National Laboratory. (August 19, 2025). Taking battery manufacturing to the next level. https://www.anl.gov/article/taking-battery-manufacturing-to-the-next-level
3. Wang, Y., Aubermann, F., & Spatz, J. P. (2025). Enhanced Ion Mobility in Helmholtz Layer Enabling Ultrathick Electrodes. ACS Nano, April 2025. Max Planck Institute for Medical Research.
4. Du, Z., Janke, C. J., Li, J., Daniel, C., & Wood, D. L. (2019). High-speed electron beam curing of thick electrode for high energy density Li-ion batteries. Manufacturing Letters, 19, 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2018.12.002
5. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Battery Manufacturing R&D Facility. (2023). ORNL research finds significant benefits from dry manufacturing process for battery electrodes. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/07/20230719-ornl.html
6. Max Planck Institute for Medical Research. (2025). Metal fleeces increase the energy density of battery electrodes. https://www.mpg.de/24758041/material-for-the-batteries-of-the-future
7. Batene GmbH. (2022). Max Planck spin-off develops more efficient batteries. Max Planck Innovation technology transfer report.
8. RadTech International. UV & EB Curing Process Overview. https://radtech.org/the-uv-eb-curing-process/
9. Energy Sciences, Inc. (2021). EB VS UV Equipment comparison study. https://www.ebeam.com/news-archive/eb-vs-uv-equipment
10. Nature Portfolio. (March 27, 2024). Nature Portfolio expands with two new titles for 2025. Nature Reviews Clean Technology journal launch announcement. https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/new-nature-review-journals/26893970
11. Argonne Lab's EV battery breakthrough to cut energy use by half