News
Boeing Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon crew capsules on track for back-to-back launches
NASA Commercial Crew partners Boeing and SpaceX are taking big steps towards two unique flight tests of their respective Starliner and Crew Dragon spacecraft, and – if the stars align – could jam-pack next month with spaceflight milestones.
In the last two weeks alone, both companies have checked off major milestones while preparing their human-rated spacecraft for flight, and – with a little luck over the next few weeks – Starliner and Crew Dragon processing could align for back-to-back launches in the last few weeks of 2019.
On Atlas’ shoulders
Starliner’s uncrewed orbital flight test (OFT) is currently scheduled no earlier than (NET) December 17th and Boeing – after years of delays – is finally on the last legs of preparation for the spacecraft’s orbital launch debut (OFT). On November 4th, some 12 months after it was originally planned to occur, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft completed a (mostly) successful pad abort test, demonstrating the ability to whisk astronauts away from a failing rocket or any other pad emergency prior to launch. Aside from a parachute deployment failure caused by insufficient quality assurance checkouts, Starliner performed exactly as expected.
With the Starliner pad abort now complete, the spacecraft’s OFT is front and center. On November 20th, United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Tory Bruno announced that the company – chosen by Boeing to launch Starliner – had successfully completed a “Mission Dress Rehearsal”, more or less a virtual simulation of Atlas V launch operations.
According to ULA, the MDR was a joint test conducted by ULA teams in Denver and Cape Canaveral, personnel from NASA and Boeing, and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) 45th Space Wing.
On November 21st, the day after Atlas V’s successful MDR, Boeing officially handed off the OFT Starliner to ULA, who used a small wheeled crawler to transport the spacecraft from Boeing’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) to ULA’s LC-41 launch complex. Finally, shortly after the transporter arrived at LC-41, ULA craned the spacecraft to the top of its Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) and technicians secured Starliner to the rocket’s payload adapter and Centaur upper stage, itself recently stacked atop an Atlas V booster.
The time left ahead of OFT will be used to ensure a successful first flight of both the spacecraft and its uniquely-configured launch vehicle. OFT will be the first time Atlas V launches a payload without a fairing. Combined with the unusual fact that Starliner is significantly wider than the rocket’s Centaur upper stage, a large skirt and other unusual aerodynamic features had to be added to counterbalance dangerous instability that could otherwise crop up in flight.
Of note, the OFT Starliner’s service section (the cylindrical lower half) will not launch with an operational abort system, meaning that the system of four powerful engines are either entirely absent or will be disabled in flight.
Boeing’s Starliner OFT will more or less mirror Crew Dragon’s March 2019 launch debut, nominally launching, reaching orbit, rendezvousing and docking with the ISS, and successfully returning to Earth a week or so later. Although NASA did not originally require its CCP providers to perform uncrewed orbital flight tests prior to their first attempted crewed launches, NASA officials have since made it clear that they are extremely grateful that Boeing and SpaceX proposed them.
Encore!
At the same time as Boeing and ULA are preparing for Starliner’s first orbital launch, SpaceX is in the late stages of preparing Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon for the spacecraft’s In-Flight Abort (IFA), a test that Boeing chose not to perform – NASA required a pad abort but left the rest up to its providers to propose (or not propose). On November 13th, Crew Dragon capsule C205 successfully fired up two Draco maneuvering thrusters and its eight integrated SuperDraco abort engines, verifying that a major design flaw that destroyed capsule C201 has likely been alleviated.
Crew Dragon’s IFA test is scheduled no earlier than December 2019 and will likely fall somewhere in the second half of the month, potentially putting it just days before or after Starliner’s orbital launch debut. All told, the last month of 2019 is likely to be jam-packed with major spaceflight milestones, particularly for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. If all goes as planned during Boeing and SpaceX’s imminent flight tests, both providers believe they could be ready for their first astronaut launches in early 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
