News
NASA confirms SpaceX will become the first private company to send astronauts to the space station
NASA has unambiguously confirmed that SpaceX – with its Crew Dragon spacecraft – will soon become the first private company in history to launch astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), both an unexpected twist from the usually tight-lipped space agency and a major upset for Boeing.
Shortly after revealing that the first astronaut-rated Crew Dragon capsule had been completed and shipped eastward, SpaceX and NASA confirmed that the historic spacecraft arrived at SpaceX’s Florida processing facilities on Thursday, February 13th. With that milestone out of the way, it’s now believed that all the hardware needed for SpaceX’s ‘Demo-2’ astronaut launch debut – Falcon 9 booster B1058, a Falcon 9 upper stage, Crew Dragon capsule C206, and a Crew Dragon trunk – is finished, acceptance-tested, and preparing for flight in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Extremely out of character for NASA given that Crew Dragon Demo-2 is expected to launch no earlier than two or three months from now, the space agency’s public statement that SpaceX will launch astronauts first simultaneously implies bad news for Boeing and its Starliner spacecraft. Contracted under the Commercial Crew Program in 2014, Boeing – awarded $5.1B – and SpaceX – awarded $3.1B – have been working to build two separate crew launch vehicles (Starliner and Crew Dragon) with the intention of ferrying NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). While both providers have had their own challenges, Boeing has been beset by numerous software failures born out during Starliner’s December 2019 orbital launch debut.
The Commercial Crew account has since deleted its tweet and NASA’s accompanying blog post – linked in said tweet – was tweaked to reflect a slightly different interpretation, but the original text unequivocally stated that “the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft [assigned to] the first crew launch from American soil since 2011 has arrived at the launch site.” Given that both the tweet and blog post contained that exact same phrase, the fact that NASA retroactively censored and corrected itself strongly suggests that SpaceX will, in fact, become the first private company in history to launch astronauts into orbit.
NASA has a fairly notorious and years-long history of going well out of its way to avoid saying or implying anything that could be perceived as even slightly critical of Boeing. A prime contractor dating back to the first stage of the Saturn V rocket, Boeing has effectively secured billions of dollars of NASA’s annual budget and possesses deep political sway thanks in large part to the revolving doors between industry and government and the hundreds of millions of dollars it has spent on lobbying over the last two decades.
More recently, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft suffered several major software-related failures during its December 2019 Orbital Flight Test, narrowly avoiding a second “catastrophic” failure mode solely because a separate software failure 48 hours prior forced the company to reexamine its code. In simple terms, both software failures probably should and could have been caught and fixed before launch if even a semblance of routine digital simulations and integrated vehicle testing had been performed by Boeing.
Unsurprisingly, NASA – at least after the fact – is now extremely concerned by the lack of such a basic and commonsense level of quality control in Boeing’s Starliner software pipeline. Even NASA, arguably, could and should have been attentive enough to catch some of Boeing’s shortcomings before Starliner’s launch debut. Adding to the embarrassment, NASA performed a “pretty invasive” $5M review of SpaceX’s safety practices and general engineering culture last year, triggered (not a joke) after CEO Elon Musk was seen very briefly smoking on a recorded interview. As part of regulations for the Commercial Crew Program, NASA was obligated to perform a similar review of Boeing’s safety culture, but the contractor demanded that NASA pay five times more – $25M – for the same thing.
NASA unsurprisingly balked at Boeing’s demands and wound up performing a more or less symbolic “paper” review that typically involves ‘auditing’ paperwork supplied by the company itself. Despite the fact that Boeing would soon find itself mired in two fatal 737 Max crashes, killing 346 people as a result of shoddy software, an unreliable design, and bad internal communication, NASA still never pursued a similar safety review with Boeing. Now, only after a nearly-catastrophic in-space failure, NASA has finally decided that that safety review is necessary, while both NASA and Boeing will also have to extensively review all Starliner software and fix the flawed practices used to create and qualify it.
Perhaps most importantly, NASA and Boeing need to determine whether Starliner’s software failures were a one-off fluke or something symptomatic of deeper problems. Due to that uncertainty and the massive amount of work that will be required to answer those questions, it’s almost certain that Boeing will have to perform a second uncrewed Starliner test flight for NASA to verify that its problems have been rectified. A second OFT would almost certainly delay Boeing’s astronaut launch debut by 6-12 months. SpaceX’s astronaut launch debut, for example, was delayed at least 9 months after a Crew Dragon capsule exploded during thruster testing after a flawless orbital launch and recovery.
As a result, even though SpaceX’s Crew Dragon ‘Demo-2’ astronaut launch debut is likely more than two months away, even some part of NASA – famous for incredibly neutral and conservative public statements – appears to be all but certain that SpaceX will launch astronauts first. As of February 13th, 2020, all Demo-2 Falcon 9 and Dragon hardware is likely finished and awaiting integration in Florida. If things go as planned over the next several weeks, Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon could launch astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley as early as late-April or May 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.
The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.
The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.
This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.
Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure
Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”
In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.
Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims
- In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
- It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain
It’s not a ghost town lol. The @Tesla Diner still had over 30,000 burger orders and 83,000 fries orders in Q4. The diner generated over $1M in revenue in Q4, a $4M annual run rate, which is more than the average McDonald’s…. pic.twitter.com/XvAGLUqxej
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 4, 2026
Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports
While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:
- A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude
TESLA DINER 🍔
Frantic!!!
Crazy busy. pic.twitter.com/wMbmr8SFFn
— Rich & Sharon (@HullTeslaModel3) January 4, 2026
- Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”
When we visited it last week it was packed. We had to wait to enter, get a table and go to the restroom. We were lucky to find a spot to charge.
— Rani G (@ranig) January 4, 2026
Bottom Line
The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”
It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.
News
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.
These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.
Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.
The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.
How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation
Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.
The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.
NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase
First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.
Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.
Preempting State Regulations
A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.
A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.
This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.
Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day
Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.
Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.
Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.
Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.
In Summary
This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
News
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance.
More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system.
Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD
Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”
During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies.
“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said.
Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration
Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.
“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.
He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.
“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”
He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.
Tesla Diner becomes latest target of gloom and doom narrative
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
