News
DeepSpace: Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin banter about the fine print of suborbital tourism

Welcome to the sixth edition of our new newsletter, DeepSpace! Each Tuesday, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between. If you’d like to receive DeepSpace and all of our newsletters and membership benefits,
Just shy of two months into 2019, the new year has been marked by a distinct focus on human spaceflight. Most of that focus has centered (as it should) on the relatively imminent launch debut of both SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner, crewed spacecraft designed and built to carry astronauts into orbit for NASA.
However, beyond SpaceX and Boeing, a considerable amount of noise is being made about the labors and relative progress of companies like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic, both primarily focused on building a suborbital tourism market with their New Shepard and SpaceShipTwo launch vehicles. Coming as no surprise from companies aiming to create a sustainable market for a very expensive consumer product, both products have been dragged through a torturous maze of marketing hype in a process that has not really done the serious endeavor of human spaceflight any favors.
The Shepard and the Ship
- Virgin Galactic’s launch vehicle provider The Spaceship Company has been working to develop a suborbital platform to launch humans since the early 2000s, incorporated after billionaire Paul Allen funded a group of companies that ultimately won the Ansari X Prize in 2004.
- The Virgin/TSC approach involves a carrier aircraft (Known as White Knight Two) and a much smaller rocket plane (SpaceShipTwo) that is carried up to ~30,000 feet (9 km) before dropping and igniting its engine.
- SpaceShipTwo is meant to reach a maximum altitude of around 300,000 feet (~90 km) at a top speed of roughly Mach 3 (1000 m/s, 2200 mph) before gliding back to land on the same runway.
- In 2014, a combination of bad aeronautical design and pilot error triggered the in-flight failure of the first SpaceShipTwo, killing one of its two pilots. A member of the NTSB board that investigated the failure stated that Scale Composites (one of TSC’s parent companies) “put all their eggs in the basket of the pilots [flying the vehicle] correctly.”
- In a February 2019 video, Virgin Galactic CEO George Whitesides noted that “many aircraft are moving to being less piloted over time [but] our vehicle really is piloted to space.”
- SpaceShipTwo most recently launched on February 22nd.
- Blue Origin has yet to launch an actual human on New Shepard, a small, reusable single-stage rocket designed to loft a separate passenger capsule to approximately 100 km (330,000 ft).
- New Shepard has conducted ten launches since its 2015 debut, most of which saw the crew capsule and booster approximately reach that nominal 100 km apogee and nine of which concluded with a successful landing of the rocket’s booster.
- Capable of carrying up to six passengers, the Crew Capsule features a built-in abort motor that has been successfully tested, as well as a parachute system for a relatively soft landing at end-of-mission.
“Spacecraft” and “astronauts”
- Aside from the generally impressive technology itself and the undeniable challenges and risks of launch humans on fueled rockets, both Blue Origin’s New Shepard and Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo exist – albeit with different weights – to cater to a new market, suborbital or “space” tourism.
- While NASA is taking advantage of the opportunities to test small experiments with both vehicles as a partial platform, the real goal of both vehicles is to routinely launch paying customers.
- While Blue Origin has yet to announce ticket pricing, Virgin Galactic has priced their offering at $250,000 per person. In both cases, the end result will likely be a six-figure sum in return for an experience that should last no more than 10-60 minutes from start to finish, excluding buildup from screening and whatever training is deemed necessary.
- In other words, short of cases involving charity, tickets on New Shepard and SpaceShipTwo will almost indefinitely be reserved for less than 1% of humanity, those with income around $1M or more per year. This is by no means a bad thing and is, in fact, a proven first or second step in the direction of democratizing exotic or expensive technologies like air travel, computers, and even electric cars (namely Teslas).
- However, both companies are laser-focused on branding their vehicles as spacecraft and their passengers as astronauts, with Virgin Galactic being the worst offender in this regard.
- Aside from literally calling its 600+ prospective customers “Future Astronauts”, Virgin Galactic uses every chance it gets to hammer home its claim that SpaceShipTwo is a commercial spacecraft and its pilots true licensed, “wing”-ed astronauts.
- While passengers are not eligible for official FAA ‘astronauts’ wings’, it appears that Virgin will continue to market its passenger experience as one where customers will get to ‘travel to space’ and more or less become astronauts.
- Blue Origin describes its commercial offering as a “reusable suborbital rocket system designed to take astronauts and research payloads past the Kármán line – the internationally recognized boundary of space.”
- Both Blue and Virgin flights offer about ~4 minutes of weighlessness between launch and landing.
- Virgin Galactic Makes Space for Second Time in Ten Weeks with Three On Board
- For context, Alan Shepard – the US test pilot and namesake of New Shepard – was launched to an altitude of almost 190 km (120 mi) for what was recognized as the first US “spaceflight” and spent something like 5-10 minutes in microgravity and above the Karman Line (100 km).
- Used as a rough measure for a sort of fixed, arbitrary boundary between “Earth” and “Space”, reasonable arguments have been made in the last few years that the 100 km Karman Line could more accurately be placed around 70-90 km, in which case Virgin Galactic might actually be technically correct when saying that SpaceShipTwo and its passengers are traveling to space.
- Fewer than 570 humans in all of history have visited space (> 100 km), around 99.5% of which were astronauts that reached orbit. To call pilots of a spaceplane as distinctly suborbital as SpaceShipOne “astronauts” is palatable, particularly given the risks they face as test subjects and test pilots.
- However, to even hinting that tourists riding New Shepard or SpaceShipTwo to altitudes of ~80-100 kilometers are astronauts would do an immense disservice to those that pushed the limits of technology, risked their lives, or even died in pursuit of orbital spaceflight, the only kind of spaceflight with any significant utility.
- Much like cruise ship customers are not under the impression that they are coming along to ‘become sailors’, suborbital tourists are not astronauts. That being said, it’s not inaccurate to describe the experience they will have the privilege of being part of as something truly extraordinary, given that they will become one of a very select few humans to have actually launched on a rocket or seen the exaggerated curvature of Earth’s limb against the blackness of space.
- SpaceX’s first attempted orbital launch of Crew Dragon – a spacecraft designed to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station – is set to occur as early as 2:49 am EST/07:49 UTC on March 2nd.
- This is the first truly serious date, thanks to the successful completion of a critical pre-launch review conducted by NASA and SpaceX.
- The second launch of Falcon Heavy could occur as early as late March
- Aside from DM-1 and Falcon Heavy Flight 2, it’s unclear what SpaceX mission will happen next, although a West Coast launch (the Radarsat Constellation Mission) is a strong candidate.
Mission Updates |
Photos of the Week:
After successfully sending the world’s first commercial lunar lander on its way to the Moon and placing Indonesian communications satellite PSN-6 in a high-energy Earth orbit, Falcon 9 B1048 completed its third launch and landing and returned to port on February 24th. The booster’s fourth mission, a Crew Dragon in-flight abort test, will likely destroy B1048, making this its last successful recovery. (c. Tom Cross)
News
Watch the first true Tesla Robotaxi intervention by safety monitor
Watch the first Tesla Robotaxi intervention by a safety monitor.

Nearly 60 hours into the launch of the Tesla Robotaxi platform, it appears we have our first true intervention that required the in-car safety monitor to intervene.
We’ve seen and heard about a handful of minor issues with the Robotaxi fleet thus far, one of which included a risky, but very human-like behavior of navigating across yellow lines to a turn lane after missing a turn.
While that is not necessarily a legal maneuver, it is something that you’d see commonly from human drivers, and although aggressive, it is sometimes reasonable to perform depending on traffic conditions.
For what it’s worth, the car seemed very confused by the situation, and while the safety monitor did not get involved and the car handled the situation with no real issue, it is something as a rider you’d like to see less of.
First Look at Tesla’s Robotaxi App: features, design, and more
As previously stated, that specific example did not require any intervention by a safety monitor. On Tuesday, we saw a video of the first true intervention that required the safety monitor who sits in the passenger seat to intervene by pressing a button on the center touchscreen.
During a ride that Tesla investor and YouTuber Dave Lee was taking in Austin in a Robotaxi, the vehicle seemed to get a little confused by a UPS truck that was parallel parking in front of it. The monitor pressed the “Stop in Lane” button on the touchscreen:
This is the first intervention we’ve seen with Robotaxi (via @heydave7): https://t.co/5mp431Z5P8 pic.twitter.com/B9ji3iLa3a
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2025
This appears to be one of the first errors shared by Tesla Robotaxi Early Access Program users that required the monitor to actually intervene. We have not seen any of it yet. You could also see the UPS truck is also a bit at fault here, as the space it pulled into did not seem even remotely large enough to fit the entire vehicle.
The car may not have anticipated that the truck would park there. You can see how the UPS truck was parked below, and it seems reasonable that the Tesla might not have thought it would attempt to fit there:

Credit: Dave Lee
The Model Y’s steering wheel was also turning sharply right into this spot, it appears. Dave ended his ride here, and stated that this was his dropoff spot. The UPS truck might have just cut off the Tesla, which led to the intervention.
It is a testament to Tesla’s strategy with this Robotaxi rollout. The company is obviously confident enough in the Full Self-Driving suite that it does not feel a human needs to be in the driver’s seat. However, it is still requiring someone, as of now, to sit in the passenger’s seat for instances just like this one.
Safety is the company’s priority with the launch of Robotaxi, and CEO Elon Musk has reiterated that. It is expected that we’d eventually see some kind of intervention that requires a monitor to step in. Everyone was safe.
Obviously, these things happen with autonomous vehicles. We’ve seen Waymos get stuck at intersections in very strange scenarios at times:
Waymo turned into oncoming traffic on the way to work.
It sat there confused for 45 seconds with its hazards on.
Then it proceeded to back up into oncoming traffic.
And they’re about to let these guys on the freeway 😂 pic.twitter.com/ZLRKx2loo1
— Jake Glaser | LA Multifamily (@LAMultiBroker) January 31, 2025
It is proof that autonomous tech is still in a growth phase and engineers are still learning about its capabilities. Tesla and other companies will learn from these rare cases and become better companies, and offer safer technologies because of it.
News
Tesla removed from Charlotte’s approved EV list due to ‘safety issues’
City reps say it’s not because of Elon Musk’s political involvement, but instead because of safety issues.

Tesla has been removed from the Charlotte, North Carolina, City Council’s list of pre-approved electric vehicles that the city can purchase.
It’s not because of Elon Musk, Democratic council member LaWana Mayfield said, who urged her colleagues to remove Tesla. Instead, she claims it is because of “safety issues.”
She said (via WFAE):
“So it is not just the particular owner of this product. It is the fact that this product has been in multiple lawsuits because of safety issues, and there are multiple concerns.”
Recent data from Tesla shows that its vehicles are about half as likely to be involved in an accident when being driven normally. When Autopilot technology is used, it is about ten times safer than the average driver in the U.S., statistically.
Tesla Vehicle Safety Report shows Autopilot is 10x better than humans
Republican City Council member Ed Driggs stood up for Tesla, saying that:
“I think we just set a dangerous precedent if we have reasons that aren’t related to the cost and the performance of purchased items for excluding them. We already have Teslas in the fleet.”
If they’re so dangerous, why are they already in the fleet?
The NHTSA also shows that Ford is the most recalled car company in 2025, with 81 total recalls. Tesla has just five for the year.
Driggs said to Mayfield during the meeting:
“We are not identifying names on this list. You are singling out one name on this list for political reasons. You don’t have enough data on Tesla compared to the other car companies to suggest they shouldn’t be here. I object to trying to disguise this as anything other than a politically motivated desire to not have this name on this list.”
Tesla was successfully removed by a 6-3 vote. Democrats Danté Anderson, Malcolm Graham, Renee Johnson, Victoria Watlington, and Tiawana Brown supported Tesla’s removal. Republican Edwin Peacock, along with Driggs and Democrat Dimple Ajmera, all voted no on removing Tesla.
The City of Charlotte will buy 45 new electric vehicles, and Teslas would likely be the best option. Many local law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have utilized them and have shown that the vehicles contribute to massive maintenance and cost of ownership reductions due to the lack of overall upkeep.
Tesla police fleet is saving taxpayers $80k per year on fuel costs: report
This is not the first time that a city in the U.S. has chosen to go in a different direction with its EV fleet plans. Tesla was chosen over Ford by the City of Baltimore for a $5 million expenditure that would bolster its fleet with EVs.
However, earlier this year, Baltimore said it “decided to go in a different direction,” and although it was not directly confirmed, the move seemed to be political.
News
Tesla threatened in France with claims of ‘deceptive’ practices
Tesla has been threatened by the Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud Control Office in France after the agency said it is participating in “deceptive business practices” related to its semi-autonomous driving capabilities.

Tesla has been threatened by the Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud Control Office in France after the agency said it is participating in “deceptive business practices” related to its semi-autonomous driving capabilities.
Investigators in the government office said that Tesla has engaged in deceptive commercial practices over the capabilities of its cars. In the past, other agencies and even some skeptics have said that Tesla’s use of the phrases “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” is inaccurate in terms of its capabilities.
Tesla Autopilot gets stone cast in its direction by Pete Buttigieg
However, Tesla has been transparent with consumers and regulatory agencies that its cars are not yet fully autonomous, meaning drivers could sleep, play on their phones, or pay no attention to the road. The car would take care of steering and speed.
Tesla has never maintained that its cars are capable of this. On its website and in its Owner’s Manuals, it says that drivers are required to pay attention and be prepared to take over in case of an emergency.
The office began the investigation back in 2023 and, this week, ordered Tesla to comply with regulations within the next four months. If it does not, it will face fines of €50,000 per day.
This is not the first time Tesla has had some pushback from regulators regarding the naming of its semi-autonomous driving platforms. Back in 2023, then Secretary of Transportation in the United States, Pete Buttigieg, said the name “Autopilot” was not accurate because it is still a hands-on system:
“I don’t think that something should be called, for example, an Autopilot, when the fine print says you need to have your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road at all times. We call balls and strikes. I view it as something where it’s very important to be very objective. But anytime a company does something wrong or a vehicle needs to be recalled or a design isn’t safe, we’re going to be there.”
He then said that Autopilot and its interaction with the person operating the car is a “real concern.”
-
News2 weeks ago
First Tesla driverless robotaxi spotted in the wild in Austin, TX
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla sues former Optimus engineer for stealing trade secrets
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla CEO Elon Musk reveals new details about Robotaxi rollout
-
News2 weeks ago
SpaceX produces its 10 millionth Starlink kit
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Robotaxi just got a big benefit from the U.S. government
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla launches new Model S and Model X, and the changes are slim
-
News1 week ago
Tesla confirms massive hardware change for autonomy improvement
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Model Y proudly takes its place as China’s best-selling SUV in May