News
SpaceX and NASA reaffirm Crew Dragon’s January 2019 launch debut target
After what can only be described as an attempt to sandbag the official launch schedule, NASA administrator James Bridenstine remains alone in his public implication that the date for SpaceX’s first Crew Dragon test flight (DM-1) is so uncertain that “the first half of 2019” was the closest he would get to an estimate.
Such an uncertain estimate would normally be par for the course of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), but the fact remains that SpaceX and NASA have recently filed for and received specific launch date allotments for Crew Dragon’s DM-1 launch, dates little more than 4-6 weeks away from today.
At the NAC HEO meeting, Bill Gerstenmaier says the SpaceX Demo-1 mission is planned “towards the end of January.”
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) December 6, 2018
As such, the fact that NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier – a critical hands-on leader of NASA’s commercial and exploration programs – specifically stated that NASA and SpaceX are targeting DM-1’s launch in January is an unusually stark indication that the two senior NASA officials are not reading from the same script, so to speak. The reasons for the dramatic differences in official statements separated by just one week are hard to parse and would inevitably tread into waters of pure speculation and political machinations.
What is far more important is that Gerstenmaier – backed up by Phil McCalister, NASA Director of Commercial Spaceflight – reaffirmed that NASA is planning for the first orbital, uncrewed launch of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon as early as January 2019, albeit with a slight 10-day slip since the last specific launch date (January 7) was announced.
Speaking before and after Falcon 9’s recent launch of Cargo Dragon (CRS-16) on December 5th, SpaceX VP of Launch and Build Reliability Hans Koenigsmann added yet another voice to the chorus, stating that he and SpaceX were extremely confident that all the physical hardware and software aspects of Crew Dragon would be ready to launch no later than January 7th.
NASA’s Phil McAlister updates the status of SpaceX’s Demo-1 Crew Dragon spacecraft, and says the company aims to have all hardware ready by Dec. 20, then will stand down for the holidays before resuming launch preps in January. pic.twitter.com/XDubh95PEV
— Stephen Clark (@StephenClark1) December 6, 2018
Why so uncertain?
It’s impossible to fully delve into the complex political and bureaucratic intricacies of modern NASA, but the uncertainty within NASA and the deltas between NASA and SpaceX’s official statements can generally be explained by the simple fact that a number of critical final reviews have yet to be completed, reviews that will offer the final determination of when or if Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon are ready to launch.
Depending on the results of those readiness reviews, DM-1 could be given the go-ahead to launch in January or it could be delayed six months because NASA wants SpaceX to change a number of critical spacecraft systems, two extreme sides of what can be best described as a spectrum of possibilities.
In other words, SpaceX’s Koenigsmann and NASA’s Gerstenmaier and McCalister have since implied that they are confident that those final reviews will look favorably upon launch dates that approximate “ASAP”. Bridenstine, while technically the head of NASA, can thus be treated as a dissenting or outlier opinion in this case, presumably offering a worst-case-scenario of when SpaceX might be able to launch DM-1 if final reviews go very badly.
-
- SpaceX technicians move the integrated DM-1 Crew Dragon during a vacuum chamber test campaign. (SpaceX)
-
- A SpaceX employee works on the Crew Dragon assigned to DM-2, the first launch with astronauts aboard. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX installed its Crew Access Arm (CAA) in September 2018. (Tom Cross)
Bridenstine and Koenigsmann’s comments are worth looking at in a bit more depth, subtly but unequivocally pointing to the differences in opinion between NASA and SpaceX that clearly still float just beneath the public surface. Asked about Bridenstine’s suggestion that DM-1 could slip quite a bit, Koenigsmann offered a skeptical but levelheaded response:
“What I could see is a [slip of a] couple of days because of [Space Station] traffic. For example, CRS-16 (Cargo Dragon) is on station at the same time, lots of traffic, lots of crew time requirements, but our target is – at this point in time – mid-January, and we’re pushing as hard and [as diligently] as we can for this particular launch.”
In fact, it appears that NASA and SpaceX concluded, around the same point in time, that a new target of January 17th was preferable to account for the logistical scheduling concerns highlighted by Hans in the above quote, allowing 10 extra days for the International Space Station (ISS) crew to complete other spacecraft operations before Crew Dragon’s planned arrival.
Even more intriguingly, local reporter Ken Kremer followed up with a question specifical triggered by Bridenstine’s suggestion (according to USA Today) that “challenges” with Crew Dragon’s landing parachutes were a leading factor in the unlikelihood of a January launch. Hans responded in his usual deadpan style:
“No; we’re working through issues, obviously, I mean every launch has things that we work through to make sure they work fine. [Dragon 2’s parachutes] actually have more redundancy than those on Dragon 1 and they are also [structurally] reinforced on Demo-1, so pretty sure [they’re] gonna be successful.”
Now we wait.
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 just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
