News
NASA head calls out SpaceX CEO Elon Musk over Starship event in bizarre statement
Roughly 24 hours before SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was scheduled to present an update on the company’s Starship launch vehicle development, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine tweeted a bizarre and wholly unprovoked statement on the subject.
Seemingly equating SpaceX’s recent Crew Dragon delays with the distribution of Elon Musk’s public attention, the NASA administrator’s comment was almost universally criticized by the spaceflight community at large – and rightfully so.
First, some context. Created in 2010 and first supported with serious funding some 12-24 months later, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) exists to replace the astronaut transport capabilities once offered by Space Shuttle and now achieved with contracts for seats on Russian Soyuz launches. Primarily the result of inept bureaucracy in NASA and Congress, the Space Shuttle was “retired” in 2011 in full knowledge that the US would have to rely on Russia to get NASA astronauts to the ISS until 2015 (at the absolute earliest).
Congress shut down multiple 2010 proposals to continue Shuttle flights until the late 2010s, choosing instead to kill the Shuttle and divert its associated funding to the expendable Ares V rocket (now the Space Launch System, SLS) and Orion crew capsule. More on that later...
Retweeted by Bridenstine’s official Twitter account, above is the absolute best-case interpretation of the NASA administrator’s comment. Although Eric Berger means well, the interpretation gives NASA far too much credit. Specifically, Bridenstine (or whoever fed him the statement) went out of his way to make it entirely one-sided in its focus on SpaceX. By all appearances, it would have never been posted if not for Elon Musk’s plans to present on Starship. Bridenstine additionally notes that “Commercial Crew is years behind schedule” and indicates that “NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on [its] investments”.
Altogether, it’s simply impossible to interpret it as anything less than Bridenstine scolding SpaceX – and SpaceX alone – for not falling to the floor, kissing NASA’s feet, and pretending that Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 are the only things in existence. Absent from Bridenstine’s criticism was NASA’s other (and even more delay-complicit) Commercial Crew Partner, Boeing, who has yet to complete a pad abort or orbital flight test of its Starliner spacecraft. SpaceX completed Crew Dragon’s pad abort in 2015 and completed a flawless orbital flight test in March 2019.
In essence, Bridenstine is publicly implying that SpaceX needs to stop being (or appearing to be) distracted by Starship and focus 100% on Crew Dragon. Boeing was not mentioned, despite being a minimum of six months behind SpaceX and dramatically more ‘distracted’ in the Bridenstine-style interpretation of the word. For reference, Boeing is a publicly-traded company with 150,000 employees, annual revenue of more than $100B, and a market cap of $206B. Boeing has 14 subsidiaries, a handful of which are involved in spaceflight, and has no less than one or two dozen products that are each more fiscally important to shareholders and board members than Starliner.
Compared to Boeing’s annual ~$100B revenue, the entirety of the Starliner development program – from the drawing board in 2010 to crewed, orbital spaceflight sometime in 2020 – is ~$4.8B. On the scale of corporate focus, Starliner has likely been a blip at most in 2019, with the company probably far more focused on the systematic organizational failures that lead to the deaths of hundreds of people in two near-identical 737 MAX crashes. Alas, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine did not release a statement publicly implying that Boeing needs to devote the “same level of enthusiasm” to Starliner after the second fatal 737 MAX crash in March 2019. Nor did Bridenstine release a statement charging Boeing with a lack of focus after continuous reports of issues with the company’s KC-46 Pegasus tanker program, nor Boeing’s recent $9.2B US Air Force trainer jet contract, or myriad other corporate focuses.
On the other hand, as Musk noted in his relatively subtle September 28th responses to Bridenstine’s implicitly derisive comment, something like 50-80% of the entirety of SpaceX’s workforce and resources are focused on Crew Dragon, the Falcon 9 rockets that will launch it, or a combination of both. At present, Starship is – at most – a side project, even if its strategic importance to SpaceX is hard to exaggerate. The same is largely true for Starlink, SpaceX’s ambitious internet satellite constellation program. It may be true that Starship will eventually make Crew and Cargo Dragon (as well as Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy) wholly redundant, but that is likely years away and SpaceX will support NASA – as it is contractually required to – for as long as the space agency has vested interest in using Crew Dragon.
At the same time, NASA has explicitly and publicly chosen to prioritize safety over schedule with the Commercial Crew Program, accepting the possibility of delays and cost overruns to ensure that SpaceX and Boeing can build the safest spacecraft possible.
In a September 28th interview with CNN, Musk bluntly noted that the hardware was – at this point in time – more or less ready for flight and will be on-site at SpaceX’s Pad 39A Florida launch site within the next two months. According to Musk, from then on, any additional launch delays can almost entirely be attributed to the paperwork and reviews NASA must complete before giving SpaceX the go-ahead. If Bridenstine wants SpaceX to launch astronauts sooner, one – and possibly the only – solution is to tackle the roadblocks created by NASA’s own self-enforced red tape. The question, then, is whether Bridenstine wants to cut away red tape that may (or may not) be there for good reason.
When the pot calls the kettle black
Detached from whining about a contractor’s CEO presenting about a non-NASA program, complaining about Commercial Crew delays is at least slightly more reasonable. Originally intended to launch as early as 2015, Congress systematically underfunded the Commercial Crew Program by more than 50% for over half a decade, dispersing $2.4B of the $5.8B NASA requested from 2011 to 2016. Unsurprisingly, this completely upended Boeing and SpaceX development schedules. By September 2014, SpaceX aimed to have Crew Dragon certified by NASA for astronaut transport before the end of 2017, but even then, NASA already saw that schedule as overly optimistic.
It would be another two years before Congress began to seriously fund Commercial Crew at its requested levels, beginning in FY2016. In response to Bridenstine, former NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver noted that over the ~5 years Congress consistently withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of critical funds from Commercial Crew, NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft were just as consistently overfunded above and beyond their budget requests. From 2011 to 2016 alone, SLS and Orion programs requested $11B and received an incredible $16.3B (148%) from Congress, while Commercial Crew requested $5.8B and received $2.4B (41%).
Ironically, despite literally receiving almost seven times as much funding as Crew Dragon and Starliner, SLS and Orion are arguably just as – if not more – delayed than their commercial brethren. Originally intended to launch an uncrewed test flight in 2017, there is now little to no chance that that mission (known then as EM-1 and now as Artemis-1) will launch before 2022, a delay of roughly half a decade. The cost of the SLS/Orion program recently crested $30B, a figure likely to grow to ~$40B before it has conducted a single launch. Of that funding, approximately a third has gone to Boeing, the primary contractor responsible for NASA’s comically-delayed SLS Core Stage – the orange booster pictured above.
The Commercial Crew development program will likely cost NASA $8B total over 9-10 years and produce two clean-sheet, high-performance, (relatively) low-cost crewed spacecraft. After their demonstration launches are completed, NASA will transition to fixed-price service contracts with SpaceX and Boeing to routinely send astronauts to the ISS several times per year.
Put simply, if Bridenstine actually cared about defending “the investments of the American taxpayer” more than wielding their sanctity as a political weapon, he wouldn’t have folded like a house of cards at the slightest resistance to his attempts to cull SLS/Orion delays and cost overruns, and he certainly wouldn’t be wasting breath complaining about what SpaceX’s CEO is or isn’t talking about.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors from a fiscal standpoint, at least that is what Alexander Potter at Piper Sandler, a top Wall Street firm covering the company, says.
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Analyst Alexander Potter, in the firm’s latest “Definitive Guide to Investing in Tesla,” built a comprehensive framework covering 17 separate product lines.
This granular approach values Tesla’s core businesses—including electric vehicles, energy storage, Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, in-house insurance, Supercharging network, and a standalone robotaxi operation—at approximately $400 per share, without assigning any value to Optimus or related inference-as-a-service opportunities.
“At $400/share, we think investors can buy Optimus for ‘free,’” Potter stated in the note. Piper Sandler maintained its Overweight rating on Tesla shares and a $500 price target, which implicitly attributes roughly $100 per share to the robot-related businesses— a figure the analyst views as potentially conservative.
The updated model incorporates elements often overlooked by other sell-side analysts, such as detailed forecasts for Tesla’s insurance operations, Supercharger revenue, and a distinct valuation for the robotaxi business separate from FSD software licensing. It also accounts for Tesla’s 2025 CEO compensation plan for the first time.
Potter acknowledged that his estimates for 2026 and 2027 fall below Wall Street consensus, citing factors like declining deliveries from certain discontinued models and reduced regulatory credit income.
However, he expressed limited concern, noting that traditional vehicle delivery metrics are expected to matter less over time as FSD subscriber growth and robotaxi deployment metrics gain prominence. On Optimus specifically, Potter suggested the humanoid robot program, combined with inference services, “arguably will be worth more than Tesla’s other businesses combined,” though the firm has not yet produced formal long-term forecasts for these segments.
Tesla shares have traded near the $400 range in recent sessions, reflecting ongoing investor focus on the company’s autonomous driving progress and expansion into robotics and AI. The Optimus project remains in early development stages, with Tesla aiming to deploy the robots initially for internal factory tasks before broader commercial applications.
This Piper Sandler analysis highlights the growing emphasis among some investors and analysts on Tesla’s long-term technology platform potential beyond its current automotive and energy businesses.
As with any forward-looking valuation, outcomes will depend on execution timelines, technological breakthroughs, regulatory approvals for autonomous systems, and market adoption of humanoid robotics—areas that carry significant uncertainty and execution risk.
The note underscores a common theme in Tesla coverage: differing views on how to quantify emerging high-growth opportunities like robotics within the company’s overall enterprise value. Investors are advised to consider their own risk tolerance and conduct thorough due diligence regarding these speculative elements.
News
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Tesla Giga Texas is buzzing with a lot of action, as it appears the new Cybertruck trim that was offered a few months back has entered production. Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking footage over Giga Texas on the morning of May 11, 2026, revealing fresh batches of Cybertrucks that may mark the start of series production for the long-awaited $59,990 Dual Motor AWD variant.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The vehicles lined up in staging areas, and we got a great look at three of the units parked on the property:
Hard to say for sure, but production of the $59K AWD @Cybertruck may be just getting started here on this early and soggy morning at Giga Texas … this version is much harder to visually distinguish from the premium AWD versions, so I’ll come back on Wednesday and we’ll see if… pic.twitter.com/UX7yCQpgeC
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 11, 2026
Tegtmeyer notes the difficulty in visually distinguishing this base AWD model from higher-trim versions, unlike the earlier Long-Range RWD that lacked a motorized tonneau cover.
Tesla launched the $59,990 Dual Motor AWD Cybertruck in late February 2026 with a brief introductory pricing window that closed by month’s end.
Initial U.S. delivery estimates of June 2026 quickly slipped to September–October and, for newer orders, as far as April 2027.
The move underscores robust consumer interest in a more accessible all-wheel-drive Cybertruck priced under $60,000 before incentives—positioning it as a volume play for Tesla’s electric pickup lineup while premium AWD and Cyberbeast variants continue to be sold as usual.
Meanwhile, Cybercab production at the same Austin facility shows steady, if deliberate, progress. Tegtmeyer’s latest flyover documented dozens of glossy production-spec Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot—consistent with Tesla’s early statements that initial output would remain modest before scaling later in 2026.
The purpose-built robotaxi, unveiled in 2024 and lacking a steering wheel or pedals, rolled its first unit off the line in February. Volume manufacturing began in April, with early examples already undergoing autonomous testing around the factory grounds.
Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Cybercab and Semi production will start slowly before ramping “exponentially” toward year-end. The presence of multiple finished units signals Tesla’s Unboxed manufacturing process is maturing, even as the company balances Cybertruck output with autonomy milestones.
Recent drone imagery also shows ongoing construction for Optimus and test-track expansions, highlighting Giga Texas’s evolving role as Tesla’s hub for next-generation vehicles.
For Cybertruck buyers, the potential ramp of the $59K AWD offers hope of shorter waits and broader market access. For autonomy enthusiasts, the growing fleet of Cybercabs hints at robotaxi service trials on the horizon.
While official confirmation from Tesla remains pending, Tegtmeyer’s footage provides the clearest public signal yet that both programs are advancing in parallel at Giga Texas.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gains momentum in Europe with new country mulling approval
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) technology is gaining momentum in Europe, with yet another new country mulling a potential approval for operation on its roads.
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
While the department noted that full rollout in Ireland would ultimately depend on EU-level clearance, the engagement marks a notable step forward in Tesla’s European expansion strategy, Irish media outlet RTE said.
The news comes on the heels of a landmark breakthrough in the Netherlands. In April, Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted the first-ever EU type approval for FSD Supervised after 18 months of rigorous testing on public roads and tracks. The provisional approval allows the system on all Dutch roads, with Tesla already rolling it out to select owners following mandatory safety training.
The Netherlands has since notified the European Commission and is advocating for wider recognition, positioning the Dutch decision as a potential template for the bloc.
Europe has long lagged behind the United States, China, and other markets where FSD is more widely available. Strict EU regulations on automated driving systems have required extensive validation, but momentum is building.
Tesla now lists the Netherlands alongside established markets such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and South Korea on its regional FSD page. Other countries, including Belgium, are reportedly fast-tracking their own review processes in response to the Dutch precedent.
Analysts see Ireland’s involvement as strategic. As a smaller EU member with unique road challenges—narrow rural lanes, hedgerows, and variable weather—successful validation there could demonstrate FSD’s adaptability and strengthen the case for harmonized EU approval.
Tesla has indicated it aims for broader EU deployment as early as summer 2026, though the timeline remains fluid. Discussions at the EU’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles continue, with a possible vote later in the year. Some member states, particularly in Scandinavia, have expressed reservations over edge cases like speeding protocols and long-term safety data.
For Tesla, European expansion is more than a software update; it unlocks significant growth. The continent’s dense population and high vehicle ownership could accelerate data collection, refine the AI models powering FSD, and pave the way for unsupervised autonomy and robotaxi services.
Owners stand to benefit from enhanced safety features and reduced driver fatigue, while regulators weigh innovation against proven risk reduction. Early Dutch results already cite safety improvements:
Tesla Full Self-Driving shows stunning maneuver in Europe to silence skeptics
But the work is far from done, and challenges are still present. FSD Supervised still requires driver attention and a readiness to intervene. EU rules emphasize that the technology is not fully autonomous, placing legal responsibility on the human operator. Tesla must also navigate varying national road conditions and public perception.
Nevertheless, the Ireland talks underscore a clear trajectory: one national approval at a time, Europe is inching closer to widespread FSD access. If the Dutch model gains traction, Summer 2026 could mark the beginning of a transformative chapter for autonomous driving on European roads.
Tesla’s persistent engagement with regulators is starting to pay off, and it suggests the company is still heavily committed to the expansion efforts across Europe, despite the red tape it has had to persist through.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
