News
SpaceX’s BFR and Raptor deemed “science-fiction” by French space agency manager
Speaking in a September 7th interview with French newspaper Courrier International, Dr. Francis Rocard – director of French space agency CNES’ solar system exploration program – had little good to say about SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk’s long-term ambitions in space, going so far as to question the CEO’s driving ethics and label the company’s next-generation rocket and propulsion system “science-fiction”.
-
- Ariane’s lineage. (ESA)
-
- Ariane 62 and 64. (ESA)
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 will be absolutely critical to the success (and even the basic completion) of Starlink. (Tom Cross)
-
- BFR (2018) breaks through a cloud layer shortly after launch. (SpaceX)
Pehaps best known for its involvement in interplanetary space exploration missions like Rosetta and European launch provider Arianespace, CNES is providing a bit less than 25% of the $3.8 billion ESA is spending to develop the Ariane 6 rocket, as well as another $700m for the construction of a new launch pad and support facilities at the space agency’s French Guiana spaceport.
ArianeGroup, a public-private partnership and company, plans to begin replacing its highly successful Ariane 5 rocket with Ariane 6 as early as 2020 and is providing roughly $475 million of its own money to develop that launch vehicle. Ariane 5, which just completed its 100th successful launch on September 25th, costs between $165m and $220m (2016) per launch and is fully expendable, while Ariane 6 – also fully expendable – is targeting a slightly more practical cost between $100m and $130m per flight.
Differences between Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 are exceedingly minor, with the majority of differences found in the cost of each rocket. The end result for customers is essentially the exact same performance of Ariane 5 (or significantly worse) for at most a 40% discount. Ariane 6 will have light (2 solid rocket boosters) and heavy (4 SRBs) variants, and the light variant (known as Ariane 62) is expected to cost no more than 20% less than its heavy cousin while offering considerably less than half the performance.
This poses a major issue for ArianeGroup, as its current Ariane 5 only marginally functions as a commercial rocket thanks to an extensive reliance on dual-satellite launches, in which two different payloads are manifested on the same rocket in order to halve the cost each customer must pay. According to Arianespace, the best possible price a customer might wind up paying for one of Ariane 5’s two slots is ~$60m, essentially the same as the base price for a dedicated Falcon 9 launch. The problem, however, lies in the reality that Ariane 62 will be effectively incapable of performing the same dual-manifest launches but end up costing significantly more for a dedicated launch than the $60m-$100m Ariane 5 customers currently expect.
-
- This exploded view shows how Ariane 5 launches two large satellites at once. (ESA)
-
- A render showing Ariane 64. (Arianespace)
-
- A gif of Raptor throttling over the course of a 90+ second static-fire test in McGregor, Texas. (SpaceX)
-
- Yusaku Maezawa stands on the first BFR composite tank/fuselage section prior to his Sept. 17 announcement. (Yusaku Maezawa)
Ariane 64, at most a 40% cheaper replacement for Ariane 5, doesn’t even have a tentative launch debut date set, while Ariane 62 is pencilled in for a 2020 debut with several more launches soon after, potentially ramping up to a dozen missions per year in the mid-2020s. Rocard, while not directly involved in CNES’ own tenative work with reusable rocket experiments or its relationship with Ariane rockets, placed himself in an inopportune position by so bluntly dismissed and demeaning the near to long-term ambitions of SpaceX.
Not only are BFR and Raptor quite literally real enough to touch, but SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 is beginning to ramp up launch and reuse activities, placing the launch upstart in a position where the long-term survival – let alone success – of ArianeGroup and its Ariane 6 rockets seems no less likely than SpaceX’s realization of its Mars aspirations in the 2020s and 2030s. May the best rockets win.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
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.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
