News
Rocket Lab spacecraft sends NASA’s CAPSTONE mission to the Moon
Rocket Lab has successfully sent a small NASA spacecraft on its way to the Moon, acing the complex interplanetary launch on its first try.
The public aerospace company’s (mostly) standard two-stage Electron rocket lifted from its New Zealand-based LC-1 pad on June 28th and inserted NASA’s tiny 25-kilogram (~55 lb) “Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment” (CAPSTONE) spacecraft into a low Earth parking orbit without issue. As is fairly typical for most modern Electron launches, a small ‘kick stage’ was included for orbital operations and payload deployment, but CAPSTONE’s kick stage and destination were anything but typical.
Instead of slightly and briefly tweaking a run-of-the-mill low Earth orbit, CAPSTONE’s kick stage was tasked with sending the spacecraft (and itself) all the way from LEO (~300 kilometers) to a lunar transfer orbit with an apoapsis 1.2 million kilometers (~750,000 mi) from Earth.
To accomplish that feat, Electron’s extensively upgraded Lunar Photon kick stage would need to perform more than half a dozen major burns spread out over almost a week, and survive hostile conditions while maintaining total control throughout. Generally speaking, Rocket Lab offers three kick stage variants: a standard low-thrust, low-longevity stage for small orbital adjustments shortly after launch; an upgraded Photon that can either serve as a long-lived satellite or kick stage; and an even more upgraded Photon with large propellant tanks and a more powerful ‘HyperCurie’ engine. With an impressive 3200+ meters per second of delta V, the latter variant could boost significant payloads into higher Earth orbits but is primarily designed for deep space missions – sending payloads beyond Earth orbit.
Rocket Lab wants to launch its own self-funded mission(s) to Venus, delivering one or several small atmospheric probes to help peel back the curtain on the chronically under-explored planet. It also won a 2021 contract to supply a pair of Mars-bound Photon spacecraft buses for NASA’s Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) in 2024, and has multiple orders for simpler Photons that will support slightly more ordinary missions back in Earth orbit.

Lunar Photon’s performance on CAPSTONE bodes extremely well for those ambitious future plans. Within hours of reaching orbit, Photon had begun the orbit-raising process. Over the course of five days, Photon performed six major burns, effectively taking larger and larger ‘steps’ towards the Moon. The spacecraft’s seventh and final burn boosted its apoapsis almost tenfold from ~70,000 to 1.2 million kilometers from Earth, officially placing CAPSTONE on a ballistic lunar trajectory (BLT). While highly efficient, CAPSTONE’s trajectory means it will have to wait until November 2022 to truly enter orbit around the Moon using its own small thrusters.
Once there, “CAPSTONE will help reduce risk for future spacecraft by validating innovative navigation technologies and verifying the dynamics of” lunar near-rectilinear halo orbits (NRHO). The story behind that strange lunar orbit – which will make exploring the Moon’s surface significantly less convenient – is far less glamorous, however. CAPSTONE is essentially a tiny precursor to NASA’s Artemis Program, which the agency claims will help “establish the first long-term presence on the Moon.”
In reality, NASA’s concrete plans currently include a series of short and temporary human landings in the 2020s. While the agency has contracted with SpaceX to develop a potentially revolutionary Starship Moon lander for a single uncrewed and crewed demonstration mission, NASA’s current plan involves using its own Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft as a sort of $4 billion lunar taxi to carry astronauts from Earth’s surface to a Starship lander waiting in lunar orbit. Starship will then carry those astronauts to the surface, spend about a week on the ground, launch them back into lunar orbit, and rendezvous with Orion, which will finally return them to Earth.


Orion’s service module delivers about half as much delta V as NASA’s 50-year-old Apollo Service Module, severely limiting its deep space utility and making safe crewed trips to and from low lunar orbits virtually impossible on its own. Instead of improving the spacecraft’s performance and flexibility by upgrading or replacing the European-built service module (ESM) over the last decade, NASA accepted that Orion would only ever be able to send astronauts to lunar orbits that would always be inconvenient for surface operations.
CAPSTONE’s ultimate purpose, then, is to make sure that spacecraft operate as expected in that compromise orbit – only necessary because Orion can’t reach the lower lunar orbits that are already thoroughly understood.
News
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.