News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon gets tentative NASA target for first astronaut launch
New information from both NASA and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirm that SpaceX is currently targeting – at least very tentatively so – Crew Dragon’s first launch with astronauts aboard no earlier than November 15th, 2019.
SpaceX is currently in the midst of a complex, high-stakes anomaly investigation after its flight-proven DM-1 Crew Dragon capsule suffered a catastrophic failure on April 20th. That investigation is nowhere near full closure due to the fact that the interests of NASA and the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) are equally interwoven into the work involved. Given the potential consequences of a similar failure occurring with astronauts (public or private) aboard, NASA is unlikely to accept anything less than a no-stone-left-unturned analysis and failure resolution, including any necessary design changes to Crew Dragon, no matter how far-reaching.
As NASASpaceflight.com’s Chris Gerbhardt notes, the Crew Dragon-related dates included in the NASA Flight Planning Integration Panel (FPIP) document are extremely tentative. They’re really only there to serve as placeholders for longer-term International Space Station planning, already a necessarily uncertain endeavor. Nevertheless, NASA’s NET November 15th 2019 planning date for Crew Dragon DM-2 (the first crewed test flight) was likely okayed by SpaceX – if not provided outright by the company – before going into an official FPIP.
In other words, November 15th is probably a real target but should be treated as an absolutely-positively-no-earlier-than launch date for Crew Dragon’s first astronaut-laden mission to the ISS. Back in late March (after DM-1’s successfully completion but before the capsule’s ground failure), anonymous Russian space industry sources confirmed that NASA’s DM-2 planning date was July 25th, while also indicating that the space agency was already preparing for delays that could push DM-2 as late as November 2019.
Specifically, an anonymous Roscosmos source told Russian outlet TASS that “the [DM-2] launch of Crew Dragon is likely to be postponed to November”. Given that that delay was rumored – albeit quasi-officially – and reported on nearly a month before Crew Dragon capsule C201 catastrophically exploded during testing, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in a November 2019 DM-2 planning date officially released by NASA more three months later.
Crew Dragon stumbles, but optimism remains
As is often said, things were going perfectly up to the point that they weren’t. Despite 2-3 months of NASA paperwork and review-related delays, SpaceX’s first flightworthy Crew Dragon performed flawlessly during orbital rendezvous, docking, departure, and reentry to the extent that NASA and SpaceX officials were joking on-webcast about their partial disbelief. NASA’s lengthy post-mission review effectively concluded as much, although there is always room for improvement.
Due to those aforementioned DM-1 delays (roughly early January to early March), DM-2’s Crew Dragon assembly and integration was delayed in turn to preserve access in case DM-1 revealed flaws or necessary changes. Things didn’t quite go as planned, but the delayed integration has turned out to be beneficial, preserving access to most of Dragon 2’s critical subsystems without requiring major disassembly before any anomaly-related changes are implemented.
Per a late-May update from CCP manager Kathy Lueders, SpaceX has effectively shifted its Crew Dragon hardware assignments over one to account for the loss of the DM-1 capsule, C201. The vehicle previously assigned to DM-2 has been reassigned to a critical in-flight abort (IFA) test, previously meant to use flight-proven C201. Per charts provided during Lueders’ presentation, SpaceX’s replacement DM-2 capsule (likely the capsule previously assigned to the following mission, Crew-1) is in a sort of holding pattern to allow for modifications that may be required after the DM-1 failure investigation concludes.
Per a previous December 2018 update from Lueders, SpaceX’s original DM-2 spacecraft (now assigned to IFA) was expected to be fully assembled, shipped to Pad 39A, and ready for launch by June 2019. Accounting for DM-1’s delays, that spacecraft could likely be ready for the abort test as early as July or August, which meshes with post-anomaly indications that IFA is now scheduled no earlier than fall (September 2019)
All things considered, a pragmatic analysis suggests that Crew Dragon‘s DM-2 launch will most likely happen no earlier than Q1 2020, although miracles (and nightmares) are certainly possible. For the time being, all that really matters to SpaceX is wrapping up the C201 failure investigation as quickly and accurately as possible. Only after the company has publicly announced the results of that investigation should any IFA or DM-2 launch dates be taken with anything less than a full shaker of salt.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
