News
NASA says SpaceX astronaut launch debut is still on track despite pandemic, engine failure
Despite a global pandemic and Falcon 9’s first in-flight engine failure in almost eight years, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine remains confident that SpaceX and the space agency are still on track for Crew Dragon’s astronaut launch debut.
For the third time in about a month, NASA has officially confirmed that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon ‘Demo-2’ mission – the company’s first astronaut launch ever – is still tracking towards a liftoff in May 2020. While there are several good reasons to expect further delays, Bridenstine acknowledged and discounted those pressing risks in an April 9th interview with Spaceflight Now, explicitly stating that “if [Demo-2 does] slip, it’ll probably be into June. It won’t be much.”
Excluding several minor to moderate technical risks that have popped up in recent weeks, this suggests that the NASA administrator is also confident that one of the biggest sources of imminent schedule uncertainty – closed-door paperwork completion and joint reviews – will actually be smooth sailing.
On March 2nd, 2019, Falcon 9 lifted off for the first time with SpaceX’s upgraded Crew Dragon spacecraft on its inaugural orbital launch. Known as Demo-1, the mission was ultimately a flawless success, with Dragon performing exactly as expected throughout launch, orbit-raising, space station rendezvous, docking, departure, deorbit, reentry, and splashdown operations.
As Crew Dragon’s only orbital launch and space station docking, it also serves as the best and only glimpse into how long the more nebulous review and paperwork aspects of launch preparation can take. For Demo-1, Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon rolled out to Launch Pad 39A and completed a successful static fire on January 24th, 2019. The mission was then scheduled for launch no earlier than (NET) February 23rd and wound up being pushed back another week to March 2nd. In almost every case, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch less than a week after a successful preflight static fire and do not attempt a static fire until a given rocket and payload are both ready to go.
If there were technical challenges that lead to that six-week delay between Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 static fire and launch, they have never been broached publicly, making it more likely that NASA spent at least a month simply finishing up final paperwork and reviews. Hopefully, that substantial gap was mainly due to the fact that it was the first time NASA and SpaceX had to work together to launch Crew Dragon.
For Crew Dragon’s second Falcon 9 launch, successfully completed on January 19th, 2020, the rocket wrapped up its static fire test on January 11th — a major improvement compared to Demo-1. That suborbital In-Flight Abort (IFA) test isn’t directly comparable to Crew Dragon’s orbital launch debut, but it does encourage at least a little confidence that Demo-1’s six-week review period was an outlier.
Thankfully, Bridenstine says that all major Crew Dragon issues have been effectively closed out or are very close to closure as of April 2020. A SpaceX contractor was recently forced to prematurely drop a Crew Dragon parachute test vehicle on March 25th, destroying the mockup capsule before it could complete two final tests. The NASA administrator now says that all parties have agreed to complete those tests with a different mockup and will use a C-130 cargo plane instead of a helicopter.
Bridenstine is also confident that the coronavirus pandemic – hampering almost all forms of industry in every afflicted country – will also have little to no impact on Crew Dragon’s astronaut launch debut schedule. NASA and SpaceX have put in place strict new rules and changed a number of procedures to further mitigate risk, helped by the fact that astronaut launches to the International Space Station (ISS) already operate with cleanliness and disease prevention as a major priority.
Finally, the NASA administrator also stated that SpaceX’s March 18th in-flight engine failure was “not going to impact our commercial crew launch,” confirming that SpaceX already has “a really good understanding of” what went wrong. Most likely, this means that Falcon 9 B1048’s stumble was directly related to the fact that the booster was flying for the fifth time – a first for a SpaceX rocket and orbital-class rocket boosters in general. Crew Dragon Demo-2 will be Falcon 9 booster B1058’s first launch.
Ultimately, while there are certainly good reasons to remain skeptical of NASA’s increasingly frequent assurances that Crew Dragon’s astronaut launch debut remains on track for late-May or June 2020, there are at least as many good reasons to stay confident.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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.
— 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.”
🚨 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
— 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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
