News
Boeing's astronaut capsule flies off course, fate uncertain after launch debut
Roughly 30 minutes after lifting off for the first time on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket, Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule suffered a major failure when it attempted to raise its orbit with onboard engines.
A few hours after the failure came to light, NASA and Boeing held a press conference to update members of the media on the situation, with the space agency offering some candid – if a bit odd – insight into Starliner’s anomalous launch debut. Before the spacecraft’s software threw a wrench into the gears, the plan was for Starliner to separate from ULA’s Atlas V Centaur upper stage and use its own thrusters to reach orbit and begin the trek up Earth’s gravity well to the International Space Station (ISS).
While it will likely take weeks or even months for Boeing and NASA to determine exactly what went wrong during the mission, preliminary information has already begun to paint a fairly detailed picture.
Around 15 minutes after liftoff, Starliner separated from the rocket as intended but it appears that things began to go awry almost immediately afterward. Most notably, according to NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine’s tweets and later comments, a very early look at the telemetry suggests that Starliner’s internal clock was somehow tricked into believing that the time was either earlier or later than it actually was.
Thinking that it was in the midst of a lengthy thruster firing meant to raise its orbit and send the spacecraft on its way to the space station, Starliner was thus focused on ensuring that it was pointed as accurately as possible. Although the space station is the size of a football field, in the vastness of space, rendezvousing with it is a bit like threading a needle. While firing thrusters to do so, spacecraft thus need to point themselves as accurately as possible.
While coasting before or after one of those orbit-boosting thruster firings, Starliner thought it was actually burning towards the space station and was thus very carefully controlling its orientation with a dozen or so smaller thrusters. In short, those unintentional thruster firings burned through a ton of Starliner’s limited propellant supply – enough to make it impossible (or nearly so) for the spacecraft to rendezvous and dock the ISS, a central purpose of this particular launch.
This ultimately means that Starliner is leaning heavily on the “test” aspect of this Orbital Flight Test (OFT), uncovering failure modes and bugs that Boeing was clearly unable to tease out with ground testing and simulation. While in a totally different ballpark, SpaceX similar Crew Dragon spacecraft suffered its own major failure earlier this year, although that capsule explosion occurred during intentional ground testing, whereas Starliner’s software failed during its high-profile launch debut and has severely curtailed the scope of the spacecraft’s first orbital flight test.
In fact, Bridenstine was unable to rule out the possibility that Boeing will have to attempt a second uncrewed orbital flight test (OFT) before Starliner will be qualified to launch the space agency’s astronauts. Although early signs suggest that Boeing will still be able to attempt to deorbit and recover the spacecraft a day or two from now, the fact that Starliner will not be able to perform critical demonstrations of its ISS rendezvous and docking capabilities will make it far harder for NASA to rationally certify the spacecraft for astronaut launches.
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, for reference, completed a more or less flawless launch, orbit raise, and rendezvous before docking with the ISS. It’s almost impossible to imagine NASA giving SpaceX permission to proceed immediately into its first astronaut launch if Crew Dragon had failed to reach the proper orbit or dock with the space station.
Regardless, it’s far too early to tell whether Boeing will have to repeat Starliner’s OFT. If Starliner performs absolutely perfectly between now and its planned soft-landing in New Mexico, there might be a chance that NASA will still allow Boeing to effectively cut corners to its astronaut launch debut, but only time will tell.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
