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!
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
