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.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving impressions after three weeks of ownership
I will be fair and tell you all what I truly enjoy, as well as what frustrates me about Full Self-Driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is amongst the most robust and refined semi-autonomous driver assistance systems on the market today. After three weeks of ownership, I’ve driven around half of my miles using it, and my impressions put me right in the middle of it being very impressive and needing some work.
Of course, if it were perfect, it would be driving us all around all the time while we sleep, scroll our phones, or watch movies in the cockpit. It does a lot of things very well, and it has managed to impress everyone I’ve put in the passenger’s seat.
However, there are some things that are obvious pain points, situations that need improvement, and areas where I believe it has a long way to go. Regardless, these are things I have noticed, and they may differ from your opinions based on your location or traffic situations.
Tesla Model Y ownership two weeks in: what I love and what I don’t
I’ll try to keep it pretty even and just highlight the things that are truly noticeable with Full Self-Driving. I won’t be too critical of the things that it is bad at, and I won’t try to give it too much of a pat on the back.
I will be fair and tell you all what I truly enjoy, as well as what frustrates me about it.
*Disclaimer: These Full Self-Driving examples were in use with v13.2.9.
Where Tesla Full Self-Driving is Great
Highway Driving
I have yet to have a critical intervention of any kind on the highway. I have driven on easy highways like Rt. 30 in Pennsylvania, and I have driven on congested four-lane parking lots like I-695 near Baltimore, Maryland.
Tesla FSD does a tremendous job on all of it. I usually use the “Hurry” setting of FSD with an offset of between 25 and 40 percent, depending on what I’m doing and where I’m going. Sometimes, I want to push it a bit, and at other times, I’m okay with taking my time and enjoying the drive.
I find the driving style of Hurry is more similar to the traffic around me than the Standard, which tends to drive like an 80-year-old on their way to Bingo.
It does a great job of being considerate, maintaining an appropriate rate of travel, getting over for cars that are tailgating in the left lane after passing traffic, and it always is where it needs to be when it needs to be there.
Taking the Stress Out of Driving
A few nights ago, I was having some trouble sleeping, and I was up at 3 a.m. I decided it would be a good time to get up, grab a breakfast burrito and a coffee, and head to the Supercharger.
(If you don’t know, I do not have home charging, and I will be diving into EV ownership without that in a future article.)
I let FSD drive me to the Supercharger and back while I was done. I was able to enjoy a beautiful sunrise without having to focus all my attention on the traffic around me, while still maintaining enough attention to the road to keep the driver monitoring happy.
It was really nice. I enjoyed the ride, and it felt like I was in an Uber with a very careful driver while I enjoyed the rest of my coffee and peeked at the sky every few seconds.
Learning and Improving
A few weeks ago, I approached an “Except Right Turn” stop sign. I have discussed how these are a Pennsylvania specialty, and the first time FSD encountered one in my Model Y, it stopped, even though we were heading right.
I took over, submitted a voice memo to Tesla about it, and went on with my evening. A week later, the car approached the same turn, and, to my surprise, it proceeded through the Stop Sign correctly, safely, and at an appropriate speed.
It was nice to see this improvement, especially since this is one of those regional issues that Tesla will need to address before FSD is fully autonomous. The change even impressed my Fiancé, who was with me during both instances we came upon this turn.
Where Tesla Full Self-Driving Could Be Better
Auto Wipers
Good gravy, these Auto Wipers always seem to give me a good laugh.
They never really have the right speed; they are either way too fast or not fast enough. There’s never been a happy medium.
It also loves to activate a single wipe of the blade at the strangest times. I’ve noticed that it actually seems to activate at the same spots on the road sometimes. There’s a hanging branch near my house, and every time we go under it and FSD is activated, the wipers wipe once.
It would be nice to set your own intervals for the wipers, but I am okay with the current presets. I do hope the Auto Wipers improve, because it could be one of the best features the car has if it’s more accurate.
It Struggles with Signs That Require Reading
The “Except Right Turn” sign is one example, but another is a “Stop Here on Red” sign that is recessed from an intersection at a stop light if it’s a tighter turn. Recently, I had to slam on the brakes as it was headed straight through one of these signs.
It can recognize Stop Signs and Yield Signs, but signs with instructions for an intersection appear to present a greater challenge for FSD.
Sometimes, It Just Does Things I Don’t Like
There is a four-lane light near my house; the two right lanes go straight, but the lane furthest right is for turning into businesses past the intersection. Some people tend to go in that far right lane, even if they have no intention of turning right into the businesses, and take off quickly from the light to cut ahead.
I’m not saying it’s illegal or even wrong, but I personally prefer not to do it. I am never in that much of a hurry.
FSD tried to do that the other day; I intervened and kept it in the lane that is designed to go straight. I wouldn’t say this is technically an intervention. I would just say it’s a move I wasn’t super comfortable with because I know people tend to get frustrated with those who cut the line. It’s an etiquette issue, and I didn’t want FSD to do it.
I also am not a huge fan of when there is no traffic in the right lane, yet it continues to cruise in the fast lane. I was taught to drive in the right lane and pass in the left lane. There are states where cruising in the left lane is illegal, and it sometimes tends to stay in the passing lane too long for my liking. I will turn on my right signal and get back into the correct lane.
These are totally disputable, and I am aware of that. Some people might not see a huge issue with these two examples, and I can understand that. My courtesy on the road differs from others, and that’s okay.
All in all, I’m pretty happy with FSD, and I will be continuing my Subscription after the three-month trial ends. In the coming days, I’ll be picking up a camera for FSD videos, and I’ll be able to embed examples of what I mean, as well as share full-length videos of my drive.
News
Tesla gets price target increase on Wall Street, but it’s a head-scratcher
Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) received a price target increase from a Wall Street analyst today, who noted in his report that the company’s shares could rise or fall based on its execution in robotics and autonomy.
However, the price target boost still fell below Tesla’s current trading levels.
Mark Delaney of Goldman Sachs said in a note to investors today that Tesla has a significant opportunity to solidify itself as one of the stable and safe plays in the market if it can execute on its two key projects: humanoid robots and autonomy.
In the note, Delaney said:
“If Tesla can have [an] outsized share in areas such as humanoid robotics and autonomy, then there could be upside to our price target.”
Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.
He went on to say that Tesla could also confront outside factors that would limit the stock’s ability to see growth, including competition and potentially its own lack of execution:
“…although if competition limits profits (as is happening with the ADAS market in China) or Tesla does not execute well, then there could be downside.”
The note is an interesting one because it seems to point out the blatantly obvious: if Tesla performs well, the stock will rise. If it doesn’t, the stock price will decline.
We discussed yesterday in an article that Tesla is one of the few stocks out there that does not seem to be influenced by financials or anything super concrete. Instead, it is more influenced by the narrative currently surrounding the company, rather than the technicals.
Tesla called ‘biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen’ by Yale associate dean
Tesla’s prowess in robotics and autonomy is strong. In robotics, it has a very good sentiment following its Optimus project, and it has shown steady improvement with subsequent versions of the robot with each release.
On the autonomy front, Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi platform in Austin every few weeks, and also has a sizeable geofence in the Bay Area. Its Full Self-Driving suite is among the most robust in the world and is incredibly useful and accurate.
The company can gain significant value if it continues to refine the platform and eventually rolls out a driverless or unsupervised version of the Full Self-Driving suite.
Elon Musk
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”
Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.
Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.
In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with 2021 Model Ys, as some said they had trouble entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.
Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.
Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:
- Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
- He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.
Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:
- Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”
Franz von Holzhausen (from Tesla’s Robovan) on Tesla’s upcoming redesigned door handles: pic.twitter.com/lnaKve1SlJ
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 17, 2025
The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.
It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.
Tesla Full Self-Driving impressions after three weeks of ownership
Tesla gets price target increase on Wall Street, but it’s a head-scratcher
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new Supercharger program that business owners will love
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Board takes firm stance on Elon Musk’s political involvement in pay package proxy
-
News2 weeks agoTesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist
-
News2 weeks agoTesla explains why Robotaxis now have safety monitors in the driver’s seat
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges hours after opening public app
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk says Tesla will take Safety Drivers out of Robotaxi: here’s when
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk is setting high expectations for Tesla AI5 and AI6 chips
-
News1 week agoTesla is improving this critical feature in older vehicles