News
NASA’s first Artemis Moon mission a flawless success after Orion splashdown
NASA has successfully recovered an uncrewed version of its Orion crew capsule, marking the flawless completion of the spacecraft’s first Moon mission and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket’s first launch.
Six years behind schedule, roughly $20 billion over budget, and costing taxpayers almost $50 billion through its first full flight test, anything less than near-perfection would have been a moderate scandal. But to the credit of NASA and its contractors, who have all worn excuses in the spirit of ‘perfection takes time’ threadbare, the international team behind Artemis I appears to have actually delivered on those implied promises. While some small bugs were unsurprisingly discovered over the 25-day mission, a collection of excellent post-launch NASASpaceflight.com interviews confirm that each major part of the SLS rocket performed about as flawlessly as their respective teams could have hoped for.
Originally intended to launch in late 2016, the first SLS rocket lifted off with the second space-bound Orion spacecraft on November 16th, 2022. Propelled by its European Service Module (ESM), Orion passed the Moon around November 21st. It then entered an unusual distant retrograde orbit (DRO) around the Moon on November 26th, reaching a record distance of 432,200 kilometers (268,563 mi) from Earth in the process. After less than a week in lunar orbit, Orion departed DRO on December 1st and began a long journey back to Earth.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
On December 11th, about four weeks after liftoff, Orion separated from its disposable service module (~$400 million) and slammed into Earth’s atmosphere traveling around 11 kilometers per second (~25,000 mph). In another credit to NASA and capsule contractor Lockheed Martin, Orion’s reentry, descent, and splashdown all went perfectly. After its ablative heat shield did most of the work slowing it down, the spacecraft deployed parachutes and splashed down in the Pacific Ocean some 240 kilometers (~150 mi) off the coast of Mexico’s Baja Peninsula, southwest of California.
Taking full advantage of the fact that Orion and SLS are a government program and continuing in the footsteps of the Apollo Program, the US Navy was tasked with Orion spacecraft recovery. To that end, it deployed USS Portland – a 208-meter-long amphibious transport ship crewed by hundreds of sailors – to recover Artemis I’s Orion, which was completed without issue using the ship’s Navy helicopters, fast boats, and floodable well-deck.
Following capsule recovery, which wrapped up almost seven hours after splashdown, it’s safe to say that NASA’s Artemis I mission was a spectacular, near-perfect success. Only a few aspects detract from the extraordinary performance of the spacecraft. Most significantly, despite being half a decade behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget, Artemis I’s Orion capsule and service module did not fly with or test a functioning docking port or Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). Those systems will not be tested in space until Artemis II, Orion’s first astronaut launch, inherently reducing the risk-reduction and predictive value of the flight test.
Additionally, Artemis I launched Orion to a distant retrograde lunar orbit. No future NASA missions are scheduled to use DRO. For the time being, Artemis II will be a free-return lunar flyby mission, meaning that Orion will never enter orbit around the Moon – the safest possible lunar trajectory for its crewed debut. For Artemis III and all future Orion missions, the spacecraft will enter a different near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon – similar to DRO in spirit but entirely different in practice. That again slightly reduces the value of Orion’s spectacular performance during Artemis I.
Waiting for Artemis II
Finally, due to a series of decisions and the shockingly slow expected performance NASA and its contractors, the next Orion and SLS launch is unlikely to occur before 2025. Recently discussed by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a September 2022 report [PDF], the cause is strange. GAO says that “NASA estimates it will require ~27 months between Artemis I and Artemis II due to Orion integration activities and reuse of avionics from the Artemis I crew capsule on…Artemis II.” In other words, even though Artemis I was near-flawless, Artemis II will be delayed partly because of an attempt to reuse a tiny portion of its successfully recovered capsule.
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger recently provided another tidbit of painful context with the discovery that the decision to reuse the first deep space Orion’s avionics boxes was made eight years ago to close a “$100 million budget hole.” Inexplicably, NASA and Lockheed Martin believe it will take more than “two years to re-certify the flight hardware.” Berger explains that years ago, NASA only intended to launch SLS’s first Block 1 variant once, and expected that it would take at least three years to retrofit the rocket’s sole launch tower for the rocket’s Block 1B upgrade and second launch overall.
Years later, parochial pork-hungry members of Congress leaped on an opportunity to force NASA to build a second launch tower to help avoid that three-year gap between launches. Ironically, that second tower, ML-2, is now expected to cost anywhere from 2.5 to 4 times more than its original $383 million price tag and is years behind schedule. Meanwhile, SLS Block 1B is also years behind schedule, which led NASA to decide to launch SLS Block 1 three times instead of just once.
Ultimately, that means that the bizarrely slow recertification of eight Artemis I Orion avionics boxes – not the SLS rocket, ground systems, or any rework required after their launch debut – is now “the primary critical path for…Artemis II.” As a result, Berger estimates that delays caused by the decisions NASA made to save $100 million almost a decade ago will likely end up costing taxpayers $1 billion.
Artemis II is unlikely to launch less than 27 months after Artemis I, pegging the launch no earlier than February 2025. That gap of more than two years is just 20% shorter than the 33-month gap a NASA advisor once said could raise safety concerns because of the loss of experience that would result, which factored into the decision to build a second launch tower. Ultimately, NASA appears to have secured another very large chunk of time to ensure that Artemis II – like Artemis I – goes as perfectly as possible when the time finally comes.
Tesla launched the slightly larger Model Y L in China last year, and it became a hit in no time. The longer wheelbase, larger interior, and slightly more forgiving legroom area in the Model Y L became a sought-after possibility for U.S. buyers, who have been begging the company for a larger SUV.
Now, Tesla needs it more than ever, especially considering the Model X was discontinued alongside its Model S sibling earlier this year. It looks to be more likely than ever, and based on recent reports, it will fall in line with CEO Elon Musk’s prediction that it would arrive in the United States in late 2026.
Recent reports from Forbes and Not a Tesla App both have indicated Tesla plans to bring the Model Y L to the U.S. this year. The reports cite “credible sources,” and an analyst from AutoForecast Solutions named Sam Fiorani stated that the car would enter production later this year.
Fiorani said:
“China, Australia, and India are supplied by the factory in China, which will not supply vehicles to the U.S. Production of the Model Y L is expected to begin in the U.S. in September, which will lead to sales beginning before the end of 2026.”
Production would take place at Gigafactory Texas.
Additionally, a few Model Y L units have been spotted under wraps in the United States, giving more indication that Tesla plans to bring the vehicle to the U.S. When Tesla is close to launching a vehicle in the U.S., it is not uncommon to see these models with the exact car covers that you see below:
Looks like another Tesla Model Y L was spotted in the U.S.! pic.twitter.com/jhsdkcN5Go
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
It makes sense, especially considering Musk hinted the Model Y L would make it to the U.S. in late 2026, but it was up in the air. The CEO said the advent of self-driving might not warrant a larger SUV coming to the U.S. market specifically.
The problem is, consumers do not want to hear that. They love Tesla’s tech, FSD, and other features, but they need more space for growing families. The Model X is gone, and the most anyone can fit in a Tesla right now is seven people in the seven-seat Model Y. That back row is truly only large enough to fit small children comfortably.
Tesla fans have requested a full-size SUV, and the company has made some hints that it could be in the plans.
The Model Y and Model Y L differ noticeably in size, with the Model Y L being a stretched, six-seat variant designed for great interior room. The Standard Model Y measures approximately 4,790mm in length, 1,982 mm in width with the mirrors folded, 1,624mm in height, and 2,890mm in wheel base.
In contrast, the Model Y L extends to be about 4,969–4,976mm long (roughly 179mm or 7 inches longer), stands 1,668mm tall (+44mm), and features a significantly longer 3,040 mm wheelbase (+150mm), while maintaining the same width.
This elongation primarily benefits rear passenger space and enables a 2+2+2 seating layout with captain’s chairs, though it slightly reduces maximum cargo capacity behind the rearmost seats and adds a bit of overall mass and turning radius. The result is a more spacious family hauler that still shares the core footprint and agile character of the original Model Y.
In a major development that will inevitably strengthen Tesla’s dominant position in the American EV market, Polestar has been effectively banned from selling new vehicles in the United States, starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied Polestar authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which prohibits vehicles containing certain connected technologies (Cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) linked to China or Russia due to national security risks, including potential data collection on American drivers.
🚨 A Tesla competitor goes down
Polestar will no longer sell new vehicles in the United States starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied the brand authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which restricts the sale of cars with software and… pic.twitter.com/TrwnQeoiES
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Polestar, which is majority-owned by China’s Geely Holding, could not obtain the required exemption despite producing some models domestically.
Polestar confirmed it will sell off any remaining inventory of the Polestar 3 and Polestar 4 models, while continuing service and warranty support for existing customers. No new models or major refreshes will reach U.S. buyers, and the company is pivoting its growth strategy to Europe, where it already generates the vast majority of its sales.
The outcome removes a direct premium EV competitor that had positioned itself as a stylish, performance-oriented alternative to Tesla’s lineup. The Polestar 2 challenged the Model 3, while the Polestar 3 and 4 targeted segments overlapping with the Model Y and upcoming Tesla offerings. Polestar’s U.S. sales had already been sluggish amid intense competition and slower demand, representing just 6 percent of its global volume in the first quarter of 2026.
While Polestar was not on Tesla’s level in the U.S., it still places a dent in the evergrowing field of Tesla competitors in the country, where it has long dominated EV sales.
Tesla faces none of these hurdles. As a U.S.-founded and U.S.-headquartered company with major manufacturing in Fremont, Austin, and Nevada, Tesla’s vehicles are built with compliant domestic and allied supply chains. Its Full Self-Driving technology, over-the-air software updates, and vertically integrated ecosystem were developed entirely in-house without foreign ownership entanglements that trigger national security reviews, at least in the U.S.
Of course, it did face a similar threat in China a few years back:
Elon Musk responds to reports of Tesla ban among China’s military over security concerns
The Connected Vehicle Rule, first advanced under the prior administration and upheld under the current one, is part of a broader U.S. effort to protect the domestic auto industry and critical technology from Chinese influence. High tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and related restrictions have already reshaped the market. Tesla benefits directly: it avoids these barriers while continuing to lead in U.S. EV sales volume, Supercharger network expansion, and energy storage integration.
By clearing Polestar from the new-vehicle playing field, the policy reduces competitive pressure in the premium and performance EV segments where Tesla has invested billions. American consumers seeking cutting-edge electric vehicles now have one fewer option tied to foreign adversaries — and one clearer path to the market leader that has driven the EV transition from the start.
For Tesla, this is more than regulatory relief. It is a strategic tailwind that reinforces its position as America’s premier EV innovator at a time when domestic manufacturing and technological independence matter most.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla looks keen to bring larger Model Y L to the U.S.
One of Tesla’s biggest threats just got banned in the U.S.
