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.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
