News
NASA scrubs first SLS Moon rocket launch attempt
NASA has scrubbed the first attempted launch of its Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket after running into multiple issues, one of which could not be solved in time.
The delay is bad news for the tens to hundreds of thousands of tourists who traveled to Cape Canaveral, Florida to witness the launch in person. Worse, by NASA’s own implicit admission, there’s a good chance the main problem SLS encountered could have already been dealt with and rectified in advance of the launch attempt if the space agency had finished testing the rocket earlier this summer.
Ultimately, that omission turned the first SLS launch attempt into more of a continuation of the rocket’s first four wet dress rehearsal (WDR) attempts, none of which ended as expected. NASA engineers will now have to decide how to proceed and whether the SLS rocket can be made ready in time for another launch attempt on September 2nd or 5th. If not, the next opportunity could be weeks away.
As far as SLS test operations go, the August 28/29th launch attempt was fairly ordinary, with the rocket running into multiple issues – a few minor, a few significant, and one identical to a previous problem. The first problem – a hydrogen leak near the SLS rocket’s base – came after a risk of lightning delayed the start of propellant loading by more than an hour. A very similar, if not identical, hydrogen fuel leak had already occurred during official wet dress rehearsal testing in April and July.
That leak was fixed on the fly by properly chilling all related systems, and propellant loading was eventually completed – albeit a few hours late thanks to inclement weather. Shortly after, there were reports of a crack that needed careful analysis. Only later did NASA specify that the suspected crack was in the rocket’s foam insulation rather than its structures, the latter of which could have been a catastrophic problem.
Around the same time, the true showstopper of the day occurred when NASA attempted to chill the SLS Core Stage’s four RS-25 engines, all of which flew several times aboard reusable Space Shuttle orbiters. Three engines performed (mostly) as expected, flowing a bit of liquid hydrogen fuel to cool themselves down, but one – engine #3 – was never able to make progress toward the optimal temperature needed for ignition (~5°C/~41°F). After hours of remote troubleshooting attempts, no progress had been made, and NASA ultimately decided to scrub the launch attempt at T-40 minutes to liftoff.
Over the course of four separate wet dress rehearsal attempts in April and June 2022, NASA was never able to test the core stage’s engine chill capabilities. In a post-scrub press conference, Jim Free – NASA’s Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Development Division – revealed that all four engines were warmer than intended, further confirming that skipping a fully nominal wet dress rehearsal was likely a mistake. Clear and present evidence aside, Free stated that he and other executives still believed skipping that test was the right decision, claiming that ending explicit WDR testing reduced the number of times the rocket needed to be moved on its transporter.
Making the situation even harder to explain, Artemis I Mission Manager Mike Sarafin revealed in the conference Q&A that Boeing had changed the design of parts of the SLS engine chill (bleed) system after the Core Stage finally conducted a nominal static fire test at Mississippi’s Stennis Space Center. Completed in March 2021, the SLS rocket then sat inside NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for a full year before attempting its first wet dress rehearsal tests at the launch pad.
The first round of three WDRs were not as smooth as NASA expected and instead uncovered three relatively small issues: a hydrogen leak, a single faulty upper stage valve, and problems with a ground supply of nitrogen gas. Those small issues led NASA to roll SLS back to the VAB for repairs, incurring a minimum multi-week delay that stretched into two months. SLS also failed to complete a fourth WDR attempt in July 2022, but NASA decided to overlook the rocket parts and phases of preflight operations that were never actually tested as planned, one of which was the engine chill system.
If NASA cannot fix the RS-25 chill system within the next few days, it will be forced to roll the entire rocket and mobile launch platform back to the VAB to – at a minimum – replace its flight termination system (FTS). The US Eastern Range requires that all rocket FTS systems be tested no more than 15 days before launch, and NASA was able to secure special permission for a gap of up to 25 days. However, because Boeing’s Core Stage design places the FTS system in a location that is reportedly inaccessible at the pad, the entire SLS rocket will need to roll back to the VAB to have its FTS systems “retested” after that period.
As a result, NASA’s SLS launch debut will be delayed by several weeks (at best) if it can’t recycle for another attempt on September 2nd or 5th. The next window runs from September 20th to October 4th, but the SLS rocket took 10 days to go from its latest rollout to first launch attempt – a figure that doesn’t include the time required to remove the rocket from the pad, roll it back to the VAB, and conduct any necessary repairs or tests while back in the bay. If NASA can’t fix the engine problem at the pad by September 3rd or 4th, the true delay could be more like 4-6 weeks.
With any luck, that won’t happen, but it’s clear that a lot of stress and discomfort could have been avoided if NASA had gone into its first launch attempt knowing that its SLS rocket was truly ready.
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
