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 shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
