News
NASA to roll SLS Moon rocket to the launch pad two days early
NASA has given the go-ahead to roll its Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket to the launch pad two days ahead of schedule.
That bodes well for plans to launch the rocket for the first time (a milestone NASA originally hoped to pass in December 2016) as early as late August or September 2022. NASA says that its first SLS rocket is now on track to begin a roughly 24-hour journey to Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39B launch pad at 9 pm EDT on August 16th. That will kick off approximately two more weeks of work that could finally culminate in the rocket’s first real launch attempt as early as August 29th, a moment anywhere from 12 to 16 years in the making.
SLS was created by Congress in 2010 when the legislative body drafted a law demanding that NASA develop a heavy-lift rocket to replace the Space Shuttle. In practice, Congress (particularly several key stakeholders with former Shuttle workforce and facilities in their states or districts) was primarily interested in keeping former Shuttle infrastructure active and workers employed, and left NASA to figure out how to retroactively engineer a rocket out of a list of legal requirements mostly driven by politics.
NASA ultimately devised a rocket that would extrapolate Shuttle external tank technology into a larger liquid hydrogen/oxygen ‘core stage’ powered by four flight-proven, reusable Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME; now RS-25). A relatively small orbital upper stage derived from Boeing’s Delta IV rocket would sit atop the core stage, which would be augmented with two stretched Shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters (SRBs). Altogether, the first variant of SLS – Block 1 – is expected to be able to launch up to 95 tons (~210,000 lb) to low Earth orbit and around 27 tons (~59,500 lb) to the Moon, 32% and 38% worse than the Saturn V rocket NASA abandoned for the Space Shuttle in the 1970s.
Nevertheless, SLS will likely become the most powerful rocket currently in operation if it successfully debuts within the next few months. Only SpaceX’s Starship, which will eventually launch a Starship-derived Moon lander for NASA, is likely to challenge or beat the performance of SLS within the next 5-10 years.
However, after more than half a decade of delays and around $25 billion spent without a single launch to show for its investment, NASA no longer has any near-term plans to use SLS for more than sending a few astronauts on their way to the Moon once every year or two. The only tangible payload currently assigned to SLS Block 1 is NASA’s own Orion spacecraft, an earlier version of which Lockheed Martin began developing for NASA in 2006. Approximately 16 years and $25 billion later, the Orion capsule will be better than the Apollo Program’s Command module (capsule) by most measures, but its service (propulsion) module will be far worse.
With about half as much usable delta V (propulsive capability) as the Apollo CSM, Orion is incapable of transporting astronauts to the same convenient low lunar orbits that the Apollo Program used, forcing NASA to send it to high, exotic alternatives. As a result, NASA has been forced to create a multi-billion-dollar destination for Orion (the Gateway station) and complicate the mission of new Moon landers like SpaceX’s Starship.
Countless pitfalls and shortcomings aside, NASA is about to finally roll the fourth most capable flightworthy rocket ever assembled (behind Saturn V, N-1, and Energia) to the launch pad. Regardless of the outcome of the mission, SLS will likely be the fifth largest rocket (including the Space Shuttle) ever launched when it lifts off. If that launch is successful, the achievement will be even more impressive, marking the third time out of three attempts that NASA has successfully launched a super heavy-lift launch vehicle (>50t to LEO) on its first try.
A successful Artemis I launch would also give the Orion spacecraft an opportunity to enter orbit around the Moon and test most of the systems it will need for Artemis II, which is intended to carry two astronauts. Orion won’t carry or test any life support or docking systems, making it only a partial demonstration, but it will still be the first time a prototype of a crewed spacecraft has attempted to enter lunar orbit since December 1972.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
ā Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
šØ Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
ā TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
ā Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15ā$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
