News
NASA funds study on SpaceX BFR as option for massive space telescope launch
Speaking at the Exoplanets II conference in Cambridge, UK July 6th, geophysicist and exoplanet hunter Dr. Debra Fischer briefly revealed that NASA had funded a study that would examine SpaceX’s next-gen BFR rocket as an option for launching LUVOIR, a massive space telescope expected to take the reigns of exoplanet research in the 2030s.
Conceptualized to follow in the footsteps of NASA’s current space telescope expertise and (hopefully) to learn from the many various mistakes made by their contractors, the LUVOIR (shorthand for Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor) concept is currently grouped into two different categories, A and B. A is a full-scale, uncompromised telescope with an unfathomably vast 15-meter primary mirror and a sunshade with an area anywhere from 5000 to 20000 square meters (1-4 acres). B is a comparatively watered-down take on the broadband surveyor telescope, with a much smaller 8-meter primary mirror, likely accompanied by a similarly reduced sunshade (and price tag, presumably).
Debra Fischer: NASA is funding study on launching LUVOIR with SpaceX's BFR.
Primary option still SLS Block 2, but if it isn't ready there are private sector alternatives.#Exoplanets2
— Ryan MacDonald (@MartianColonist) July 6, 2018
Remember, this is a space telescope that would need to fit into the payload fairing of a rocket, survive the launch into orbit, and then journey nearly one million miles from Earth to its final operational destination, all before deploying a mirror and starshade as large or larger than Mr Steven’s SpaceX fairing recovery net. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), a rough successor to Hubble with a 6.5-meter primary mirror, is the only space telescope even remotely comparable to LUVOIR, and it has yet to launch after suffering a full decade of delays and almost inconceivable budget overruns. All we can do is hope that Northrop Grumman (primary contractor for JWST) is kept away from future giant space telescopes like LUVOIR.
LUVOIR A is pictured here with a 15-meter mirror and absolutely vast sunshade, roughly 80-100m long. (NASA)
The rocket problem
Nevertheless, the sheer scale of LUVOIR brings us back to an existential problem faced by all space telescopes – how to get into space in the first place. In this case, JWST offers a small taste of what launching such a large telescope requires, although it only truly applies the 8m LUVOIR B. The reason LUVOIR’s conceptual design was split into two sizes is specifically tied to the question of launch, with LUVOIR B’s 8m size cap dictated by the ~5 meter-diameter payload fairings prevalent and readily available in today’s launch industry.
https://twitter.com/Shamrocketeer/status/821799890942652417
LUVOIR A’s 15-meter mirror, however, would require an equally massive payload fairing. At least at the start, LUVOIR A was conceptualized with NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Block 2 as the launch vehicle, a similarly conceptual vehicle baselined with a truly massive 8.4 or 10-meter diameter payload fairing, much larger than anything flown to this day. However, the utterly unimpressive schedule performance of the SLS Block 1 development – let alone Block 1B or 2 – has undoubtedly sown more than a little doubt over the expectation of its availability for launching LUVOIR and other huge spacecraft. As a result, NASA has reportedly funded the exploration of alternative launch vehicles for the A version of LUVOIR – SpaceX’s Cargo BFR variant, in this case.
While only a maximum of 9 meters in diameter, the baselined cargo spaceship’s (BFS Cargo) payload bay has been estimated to have a usable volume of approximately 1500 cubic meters, comparing favorably to SLS’ 8.4 and 10-meter fairings with ~1000 to ~1700 cubic meters. The more traditional SLS fairing may offer more flexibility for minimizing complex deployment mechanisms for large telescopes (a sore spot for JWST), but SLS Block 2 is almost entirely up in the air at the moment, and liable to cost $5-10 billion alone to develop even after SLS Block 1 is flying (NET mid-2020). On the other hand, barring abject and total failure, SpaceX’s BFR rocket and spaceship could have many, many launches under its belt and a proven track record of reliability, whereas SLS Block 2 is unlikely to fly more than a handful of times ever, even if it gets built.
-
- NASA/Boeing’s SLS overview, showing the different Blocks planned. Currently Block 1’s first launch is NET mid-2020, while future variants are likely years away from launch. (NASA)
-
- The cargo version of the BFS (Big F- Spaceship) rendered by David Romax, including a number of educated guesses at what it might look like and how it might function. At the request of a friend, artist David Romax put together a truly jaw-dropping collection of concept art featuring SpaceX’s BFR rocket and its Cargo and Crew spaceships. (Gravitation Innovation/David Romax)
-
- BFR prepares for launch as the sun sets over the upgraded LC-39A, built off a concept of the future modifications included in SpaceX’s 2016 and 2017 video updates. At the request of a friend, artist David Romax put together a truly jaw-dropping collection of concept art featuring SpaceX’s BFR rocket and its Cargo and Crew spaceships. (Gravitation Innovation/David Romax)
With any luck, the results of the LUVOIR SpaceX BFR launch analysis will make their way into the public sphere once the study is completed, perhaps revealing a few tidbits about the capabilities of the next-generation composite rocket. Another astrophysicist familiar with the project also noted that Blue Origin was firmly in the running of similar conceptual launch studies, hinting at a potential competition for commercial launches of each company’s massive future rockets.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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 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.
— 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 $15–$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
