News
SpaceX executive talks rocket R&D: “Nobody paid us to make Falcon Heavy”
Set to give a keynote speech on October 3rd at 2018’s International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Hans Koenigsmann – SpaceX Vice President of Build and Flight Reliability – attended an impromptu talk one day prior, titled “From the University of Bremen to SpaceX”.
Speaking before a small audience, the University of Bremen graduate and fourth employee to join SpaceX discussed his opinions of Falcon Heavy, BFR, and more, frankly relating how SpaceX intentionally chose to build Falcon Heavy on its own, going so far as to turn down funding reportedly offered by one or more US government agencies.
From Bremen to SpaceX (to Bremen)
Hopefully a sign of things to come for his 09:20 UTC, Oct. 3 keynote, titled “Reusability: The Key to Reliability and Affordability”, Hans’ precursor talk centered around the circuitous path that led him from University of Bremen to SpaceX, humorously describing how he “got bored of airplanes pretty quickly” after becoming an aerospace engineer. He quickly turned to space, hopping between a number of German smallsat projects that eventually led him to settle in the U.S. after flying there and back “at least 25 times”.
Once in the US, he wound up working at spaceflight startup Microcosm – alongside now-president and COO of SpaceX Gwynne Shotwell – for several years before running into Elon Musk and almost immediately accepting the eccentric entrepreneur’s SpaceX job offer in 2002. He has worked for SpaceX ever since and now spends a majority of his time managing and overseeing its BFR, Block 5, and Crew Dragon programs with a focus on systematically ensuring reliability. He touched on the company’s BFR development program and pointed to the fabrication of massive composite structures as the single most pressing challenge facing SpaceX engineers and technicians.
Asked by an audience member about the apparent difficulty of developing the heat-shield segment of BFR’s spaceship upper stage (BFS), Koenigsmann was quite confident that it would be a relatively easy aspect of the craft’s development, making the argument that what really matters to the craft is overall heat transfer per unit of its shield. From a basic comparison of the area of a given heat shield and the spacecraft’s mass at reentry, his lack of concern is probably warranted – a BFR spaceship’s worst-case LEO reentry is likely to be less stressful than an average Space Shuttle reentry.
-
- BFS bares its belly in a 360 degree animation. (SpaceX)
-
- Space Shuttle Endeavor shows off its main heat shield during an on-orbit inspection in August 2007. (NASA)
-
- A slightly broader overview of BFS just after separating from the booster. Note notches along the shield/skin divide, as well as very specific access panels, hatches, and smaller protuberances. (SpaceX)
“Try [to not] get money from the government”
Perhaps most intriguing of all Koenigsmann’s comments was an almost unprovoked segue into the US government’s involvement in Falcon Heavy development. According to the SpaceX executive, the company was actually approached by “the government”, with the unknown agency or agencies stating – in Hans’ words – that they wanted to be a part of the rocket’s development. According to Hans, SpaceX responded in an extremely unorthodox fashion: “we said, ‘Nope! We just wanna build it, you can buy it when it’s ready and we’ll charge you for the service.’” He noted in the next sentence that funding was the primary lever on the table:
“It’s a great position to do this, you gotta find the money, you gotta know people that have money and are willing to invest in your company, and [SpaceX has] been lucky enough to know some of those people.”
In other words, when given an opportunity to either rely on government funding or some other source of capital for a given R&D project, SpaceX – or at least Hans Koenigsmann, VP of Reliability – would apparently recommend the latter option in almost all cases. Again, without being prompted, he elaborated on his feelings about funding sources, culminating in a statement that is simply profound coming from an executive in the aerospace industry. The following quote is unabridged and straight from Hans himself:
“You need to [try to not] get money from the government, otherwise the government will tell you what to build and how to build it… they will tell you how to build this and that’s just not always – I mean for some things it’s the best to do, but in others it’s actually not.”
-
- A concert of Draco thrusters work to push Dragon away from the ISS and back towards Earth. (ESA)
-
- The first spaceworthy Crew Dragon capsule is already in Florida, preparing for its November 2018 launch debut. The same capsule will be refurbished and reflown as few as three months after recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- It’s currently unclear whether B1046 or B1048 will become the first SpaceX rocket to fly three times. (Tom Cross)
This sentiment could suggest that SpaceX will seek to prioritize private funding sources for the development of future vehicles like BFR’s rocket and spaceship, although there is plenty of room for interpretation in Hans’ IAC 2018 comments. SpaceX currently maintains strong and productive relationships with both NASA and the USAF, primarily centered around the company’s $2.6B fixed-price contract for the development and operation of Crew Dragon.
Watch and listen to Hans Koenigsmann’s full presentation below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs2LBeLCo_s
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!
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
