News
NASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.
Incredibly, over the course his fascinating hour-long prelude, Bridenstine effectively mentioned NASA’s own SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft – under development for the last decade at a cost of at least several tens of billions of dollars – a total of one time each. Instead, heavily emphasizing the absolute necessity that NASA’s next major human exploration project be sustainable, the administrator spoke at length about the foundational roles that international and domestic space agencies and private companies will need to take on in order to make NASA’s on-paper return to the Moon both real, successful, and useful.
Aside from his arguably brave (but spot-on) decision to all but ignore Boeing and Northrop Grumman’s SLS rocket and Lockheed Martin’s Orion spacecraft over the course of an hour spent speaking about the future of NASA’s human exploration of the Moon and on spaceflight more generally, Bridenstine had nothing but praise for recent successes in the American aerospace industry.
Most notably, he spoke about his belief – at least partially stemming from an executive order requiring it – that the only way NASA can seriously succeed and continue to lead the world in the task of human space exploration is to put an extreme focus on sustainability. Judging from his comments on the matter, the new NASA/Federal buzzword of choice is just a different way to describe hardware reusability, although it certainly leaves wiggle room for more than simply avoiding expendable rocket hardware.
“It’s on me to figure out how to [return to the Moon] sustainably. … And this time, when we go, we’re gonna go to stay. So how do we do go sustainably? Well, [we take] advantage of capabilities that didn’t exist in this country even five or ten years ago. We have commercial companies that can do things that weren’t possible even just a few years ago … to help develop this sustainable [Moon exploration] architecture.” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018
While it might not look like much (aside from a “no duh” statement) to anyone unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations of NASA bureaucracy and politicking, this quote – directed at an audience of senior NASA scientists and managers and independent experts – is absolutely extraordinary in the context of NASA’s history and the formulaic eggshells NASA administrators have traditionally been forced to walk on when discussing American rocketry.
Not only is SLS/Orion utterly and conspicuously absent in a response to the “how” of starting a new wave of lunar exploration, but Bridenstine also almost explicitly names Blue Origin and SpaceX as torchbearers of the sort of exceptional technological innovation that might revolutionize humanity’s relationship with space. By referring specifically to “commercial companies that can do things that weren’t possible even just a few years ago”, the only obvious answers in the context of serious human exploration on and around the Moon are Blue Origin and SpaceX, both of which managed their first commercial rocket landings in late 2015.
Bridenstine went even further still, noting that NASA will need not just reusable rockets for this sustainable lunar exploration, but also reusable orbital tugboats (space tugs) to sustainably ferry both humans and cargo to and from Earth and the Moon and reusable lunar landers capable of many trips back and forth from space stations orbiting the moon. At one point, he even used SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s (in)famous and well-worn analogy of commercial airlines to emphasize the insanity of not using reusable rockets:
“We have reusable rockets [now]… Imagine if you flew here across the country to [NASA Ames] in a 737 and when the mission was over, you threw the airplane away. How many of you would have flown here?” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018
At today's NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, Administrator Jim Bridenstine says the next hop to the moon is going to be sustainable – and will require reusable spaceflight hardware. Uses the same airplane analogy @ElonMusk does when it comes to explaining advantages.
— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) August 29, 2018
Reusable rockets lead the charge
It may be generous to include Blue Origin side by side with SpaceX, given the fact that its New Shepard rocket is extremely small and very suborbital, but the company does have eyes specifically set lunar landers and outposts (a project called Blue Moon) and is developing a large and reusable orbital-class rocket (New Glenn) set to debut in the early 2020s.
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
-
- We’re not here just yet, but SpaceX is pushing hard to build BFR and get humanity to Mars as quickly as practicable. (SpaceX)
-
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- Blue Origin’s Blue Moon concept, set to begin experimental lunar landings as early as 2022 or 2023. (Blue Origin)
SpaceX, while focused on Mars colonization, has also expressed a willingness to participate in any sort of lunar exploration that NASA or other international space agencies might have interest in. Currently in the middle of developing its own massive and fully reusable rocket, known as the Big F_____ Rocket (BFR), SpaceX nevertheless already has a flight-tested, highly successfully, and unbeatably cost-effective family of reusable Falcon rockets capable of affordably launching significant mass to the Moon. In fact, both NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are already seriously considering SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy as the launch vehicle of choice for several critical pieces of a Moon-orbiting space station, expected to launch no earlier than the early to mid-2020s.
Whether or not Bridenstine’s incredible and eloquent statements translate into tangible changes to NASA’s long-term strategy, it’s quite simply refreshing to hear a senior NASA executive – let alone the administrator – speak freely and rationally about the reality of what is needed to enable a truly new era of human spaceflight and exploration.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
SpaceX is opening up its internet service, Starlink, to those impacted by Hurricane Melissa, as it made landfall in Jamaica and the Bahamas as a Category 5 storm.
Hurricane Melissa is expected to reach wind speeds of over 165 MPH over the next few days as it extends out into the Atlantic Ocean by Thursday and Friday.
Satellite imagery shows Hurricane #Melissa‘s growth from its formation on October 21 to a Category 5 hurricane through October 27, 2025. #HurricaneMelissa pic.twitter.com/goR3Hbgb9c
— The Weather Network (@weathernetwork) October 27, 2025
Citizens in Jamaica and the Bahamas have been preparing for the storm for the past week, getting necessary goods together and preparing for the massive storm to arrive. It finally did yesterday, and the first images and video of the storm are showing that it could destroy many parts of both countries.
Starlink is now being opened up for free until the end of November for those impacted by the storm in Jamaica and the Bahamas, SpaceX announced today:
For those impacted by Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica and the Bahamas, Starlink service is now free through the end of November to help with response and recovery efforts → https://t.co/fUko3xSviJ
— Starlink (@Starlink) October 28, 2025
It is a move similar to the one the company made last year as Hurricane Helene made its way through the United States, destroying homes and property across the East Coast. SpaceX offered free service for those impacted by the destruction caused by the storm.
The free Starlink service was available until the end of 2024.
Elon Musk’s companies have also made similar moves to help out those who are impacted by natural disasters. Tesla has offered Free Supercharging in the past, most notably during the California wildfires.
Tesla and SpaceX’s LA fire relief efforts: Cybertrucks, free Starlink and more
One major advantage of Starlink is that it is available for use in situations like this one, where power might be required to operate things like a modem and router.
Internet access is a crucial part of survival in these situations, especially as it can be the last leg some stand on to get in touch with emergency services or loved ones.
Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm appeared on Bloomberg TV this morning to discuss the current status of CEO Elon Musk’s compensation plan, and used the opportunity to reiterate a widely unmentioned key point of the entire package.
Critics of the proposed pay package, which would pay Musk $1 trillion if he completes every tranche, routinely cite the sheer size of the payday.
Of course, many skeptics leave out the fact that he would only get that money if he were able to generate eight times the value the company currently has.
Tesla gains massive vote of confidence on compensation plan for Elon Musk
For Musk, it might have a little bit to do with money, but that is likely a very small percentage point of why the compensation package is being offered to him. He has reiterated that it is more about voting control and overall influence, especially as Tesla dives into robotics.
He said during the Q3 Earnings Call:
“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern. That is really the only thing I’m trying to address with this. It’s called compensation, but it’s not like I’m going to go spend the money. It’s just, if we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army, not current control, but a strong influence? That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”
Tesla shares the idea that Musk is a crucial part of the company, and without him being awarded the voting control he feels he deserves, he could leave the company altogether.
The company is very obviously feeling the importance of the upcoming vote, as it has advertised and pushed heavily for the comp plan to be approved, mostly to retain Musk.
Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm said today to Bloomberg TV that it is crucial shareholders understand it is not about Musk’s potential wealth, but more about his influence on company decisions:
“So firstly, it is a performance package, so he gets nothing if he doesn’t perform against the pretty audacious milestones that are part of the performance criteria that’s been outlined by the board in the performance package. So, I think rather than compensation, it’s actually about the performance and the goals that we have for the company as we move forward. And so, for me, it really is about making sure that investors understand that they actually get paid if he hits the milestones before he will…Elon’s been very public, including on last week’s earnings call, about the fact that it’s around the voting influence that he could have in future shareholder meetings as opposed to the economic interests.”
Musk is not an incredibly flashy person. He does not have crazy cars or a massive house to go back to. He spends a lot of his time working and sometimes even sleeps at his office inside the factory.
He recently said he “only has what is needed” because “material possessions were making him weak.”
Material possessions were making me weak, so now I have only what is needed
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2025
News
The truth about Tesla ‘Mad Max’ mode from an actual user
Some people might see “Mad Max” as an extension of their daily driving.
For me, I did not see it that way. I saw it as a useful tool for certain situations, but it was certainly not something I could compare to my personal driving style.
But that does not mean that it’s wrong.
There have been many headlines about Tesla’s new “Mad Max” mode, but many of those writing about the “dangerous” and “controversial” mode have probably never used it.
As a writer, I write about topics I do not have firsthand experience with, but the job requires me to take a fair stance and report what is known. The problem is the nature of driving and driving modes, specifically, is subjective.
Some people might see “Mad Max” as an extension of their daily driving.
For me, I did not see it that way. I saw it as a useful tool for certain situations, but it was certainly not something I could compare to my personal driving style.
But that does not mean that it’s wrong.
NHTSA Probes Tesla Over “Mad Max”
Last week, the NHTSA launched a bit of a probe into Mad Max mode, requesting additional information on the Speed Profile and reiterating that the driver of the car is still required to be in ultimate control.
It’s important to keep the latter portion of that sentence in mind for the true thesis of this piece.
Now, it is no surprise to me that Mad Max garnered attention from regulatory agencies, as it is definitely a more spirited driving profile than the others.
Is Mad Max That Big of a Deal?
Regulatory agencies are responsible for keeping people safe, and it is important to note that their control is somewhat necessary. However, this type of drive mode is optional, requires the driver’s attention, and should be used responsibly for safe travel.
Playing Devil’s Advocate, how is Mad Max any different than the performance modes that some sports cars have? Because they require the driver to operate fully, and they are not semi-autonomous like Tesla can offer with Mad Max in Full Self-Driving (Supervised), are they safer?
The argument here really comes down to whether FSD is being used responsibly and correctly; any accelerated drive mode becomes more of a risk if the vehicle operator is not paying attention. This applies to any car company or drive mode they choose to use on their cars.
My Personal Experience with Mad Max
I have used Mad Max probably ten times since it rolled out to Early Access Program (EAP) members a few weeks ago.
I’ll admit: it did a lot of things I would never do driving a car manually. It passed people on the right. It was the fastest vehicle on the interstate, at least until I crossed into Maryland. Then, it seemed to be just another car on the road.
🚨 Tesla “Mad Max” testing on FSD v14.1.2
It drives like a human being! Consistent lane changes, keeps up with quicker traffic, very refined
Well done Tesla Team pic.twitter.com/wzTucDhczA
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 19, 2025
It drove quickly, and not so fast that I felt concerned for my safety, which I never feared for, but fast enough that, at certain points, I was concerned that a cop would pull me over. I never encountered that scenario, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it resulted in some tickets.
With that being said, I don’t particularly think I’d use Mad Max in more than a handful of applications: driving the Baltimore Beltway would be one instance, navigating traffic in Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh during heavy traffic, or cruising on I-95, where cars routinely are going 100 MPH, much faster than Mad Max would ever travel.
Is it too quick for me in residential settings? For me, yes. Is it faster than every human driving on those roads? Absolutely not. In my experience, it is quicker than some, slower than others, just like any other Speed Mode Tesla offers, even Sloth, which refuses to go over the posted speed limit.
I think it’s wrong to sit here and act as if Mad Max is some incredibly dangerous and life-threatening hazard. If a driver is uncomfortable with the maneuvers or speed, they do not have to use it. However, it is no different from how many other cars travel on the road; it is far from an anomaly.
Tesla FSD’s new Mad Max mode is getting rave reviews from users
With that being said, it will be interesting to see if the NHTSA does anything about Mad Max, whether it will require Tesla to “nerf” the Speed Profile, or remove it altogether. It’s also important to note that this is my personal experience with Mad Max, and what I’ve experienced might differ from others’.
I would love to hear your thoughts on how Mad Max has driven for you, or your impressions of it.
SpaceX opens up free Starlink service for those impacted by Hurricane Melissa
Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan
The truth about Tesla ‘Mad Max’ mode from an actual user
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk1 week agoTesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News1 week agoElon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News2 weeks agoTesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News1 week agoTesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles