News
Tesla’s ventilator donations are being used to provoke Elon Musk into another controversy
During a global pandemic, an optimist would hope that people would work together to help those in need out of the common good. A pessimist would suggest that such circumstances would bring out the worst in people instead. Recent developments in the media coverage of Elon Musk and Tesla’s ventilator donations suggest that the pessimist is right. At times like these, there are entities who choose to provoke people that are willing to help–all for the sake of controversy.
Elon Musk is no stranger to controversy, both self-inflicted or otherwise. Over the past years, Musk has butted heads with several entities, from regulators like the SEC to journalists who tend to cover Tesla with pervading negative slant. Some of these bouts have resulted in a lot of pain for Musk and even Tesla shareholders. An example of this is Musk’s spat with British caver Vern Unsworth, whose defamation case against the CEO over comments following the Thailand cave rescue triggered some TSLA stock swings and extensive coverage from multiple premier news outlets.
Musk has a strong tendency to correct misleading reports. Take CNN’s recent coverage of Tesla’s ventilator donations, for example. The news outlet published a report alleging that no ventilators have reached CA hospitals despite Musk’s commitment to do so. Musk then took it upon himself to correct the report, showing messages between Tesla and the medical professionals from the state communicating about the donated machines and their use.
This, of course, triggered even more staff from CNN to double down, alleging that the non-invasive ventilators donated by Tesla weren’t ventilators at all, despite medical professionals stating that the machines are invaluable for non-critical coronavirus cases. The BiBAPs and CPAPs donated by Tesla could even be retrofitted using a simple modification to work for critical cases. Tesla has also started delivering actual invasive ventilators to hospitals, on top of the company’s efforts to develop its own ventilator using Model 3 parts.
Anyone with an iota of sense would see that Tesla and Musk are pretty much doing what they can to address the needs of medical professionals as much as possible. Are the BiBAPs and CPAP’s donated by Musk useful in the battle against the coronavirus? Medical professionals, government officials, and CEOs of actual ventilator makers would agree. Can the machines be modified to work for more severe cases? The doctors at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York say it’s actually pretty simple to do so. With this in mind, it seems like a no-brainer to conclude that the machines Tesla donated are indeed helping in the battle against the ongoing pandemic.
This point was lost entirely in critical articles that have been published about Musk and Tesla’s donations from outlets such as CNN. One who is unfamiliar with the events that led up to Musk’s recent Twitter interactions would likely think that the Tesla CEO brazenly lied when he committed to donating free ventilators, instead giving away cheap machines that are useless against the C-19 virus. Critics would even refuse to acknowledge non-invasive machines as actual ventilators, despite authorities such as John Hopkins listing them as such.
A key thesis against Musk alleges that he lied about ventilator donations to get some free PR and goodwill. This does not hold water, as Tesla and Musk already receive an insane amount of media coverage, and the company is scrutinized consistently by the media and critics from Wall Street. Thus, the idea of Musk wanting more media coverage to stroke his ego does not seem to make sense, considering that he and his companies actually get a little bit too much coverage. With this in mind, it appears that CNN’s recent reports about Tesla’s ventilator donations, as well as the succeeding tweets from the media outlet’s staff doubling down on their narrative, are designed to do one thing. They are posted to provoke Musk, until such a time when he actually responds with something concretely controversial.
Something similar has happened before. Mention Musk’s name with the Thai cave rescue and many will likely remember the CEO’s incendiary comments against British caver Vern Unsworth. A popular narrative for the event also alleges that Musk stuck his nose into the rescue without prompting so he can get free PR, and that he “attacked” the caver just because he wanted to. The fact that Musk was invited to help, that his team was in close communication with rescuers, and that the caver initiated the verbal spat, are largely forgotten. These experiences, as painful as they may be, must now stand as a huge lesson to Elon Musk.
Musk is no stranger to controversies with the media, and having gone through significant pains over the years because of them, he must handle the ongoing attempts to provoke him with extreme caution. At this point, Musk’s critics (and apparently, CNN staff) are practically salivating at the prospect of the CEO firing off a tweet that can be interpreted as a direct act of aggression against the news outlet or any of its staff. So far, Musk’s responses have been sarcastic, and that’s fine and true to his personality. But the Tesla CEO must be aware that he is not playing a fair game here. Every point of syntax and semantics can and will be exploited to fit a narrative, even if it means twisting the context of a statement. With this in mind, Musk’s best strategy for now is to proceed with a ton of caution, or complete silence.
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
