News
SpaceX still an option for future Amazon internet satellite launches, says Senior VP
An Amazon executive says that the company could still call on SpaceX to launch some of its Project Kuiper internet satellites after two of the three unproven rockets it purchased announced launch delays days apart.
Amazon began work on Project Kuiper in 2018. When SpaceX CEO Elon Musk fired several senior employees overseeing the company’s Starlink satellite internet program for being overly cautious, at least two of those employees immediately landed in senior positions at Project Kuiper. Four years later and more than two years after Amazon received an FCC license to deploy its 3,236-satellite Project Kuiper constellation, which aims to compete directly with SpaceX’s Starlink, the company’s first prototype satellite launch has changed rockets and slipped from late 2022 to early 2023.
Of the 77 firm launch contracts Amazon has signed since April 2021, only nine are for a rocket – United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V – that has already successfully flown. The remaining 68 (and another 15 exercisable options) are spread among ULA’s Vulcan Centaur, Arianespace’s Ariane 6, and Blue Origin’s New Glenn, all of which are months away from their first launch attempts.
On October 10th, ULA CEO Tory Bruno told reporters that Vulcan Centaur’s launch debut had slipped from its latest late-2022 target to no earlier than (NET) “early 2023.” Garnering 38 of 77 firm contracts, Vulcan is the single most important rocket for Amazon’s Project Kuiper plans and is likely expected to launch close to half of all Kuiper satellites.
Nine days later, Ariane Group and the European Space Agency (ESA) announced that Ariane 6’s launch debut had also slipped from a late-2022 target. Unlike Vulcan’s gentle early-2023 slip, Ariane 6’s debut was pushed to late 2023 at the earliest, and ESA and Ariane officials frankly admitted that that could easily become 2024. Excluding options, Ariane 6 won 18 Project Kuiper launch contracts and is the constellation’s second most important rocket.
Because Amazon applied for its Project Kuiper license so early, a six-year countdown started when the FCC approved its license in July 2020. If Amazon fails to launch half of its 3,236 satellites within six years of that receipt, the FCC could revoke Kuiper’s constellation license. While it’s unlikely that the FCC would actually revoke the license of a constellation that’s close to achieving its deployment milestones, the deadline still emphasizes just how far Amazon and its suppliers are falling behind.
Vulcan, Ariane 6, and Project Kuiper prototype launch delays have only worsened an already challenging situation. In addition to the rocket’s long-awaited debut, ULA has major obligations to NASA and the US military, who expect Vulcan to complete up to four more launches in 2023. Unless ULA pulls off a minor miracle, it’s unlikely that Vulcan will be able to launch five times in its first year of service. Respectively, ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets took 2.5 and 3.5 years to reach that milestone. If ULA’s past record serves as a reasonable guide for its future, it’s possible that Vulcan Centaur won’t have the spare capacity to begin Project Kuiper launches until 2025.
The same is arguably true for Ariane 6, which has an even busier manifest – all of which may be delayed to 2024. Of Arianespace’s two most recent rockets, Ariane 4 took 14 months and Ariane 5 took 53 months to complete their first five fully successful launches. Ariane 6 borrows heavily from Ariane 5’s design. Unless Arianespace gets off to a record-breaking start or prioritizes Amazon over ESA and other European operators, an almost unthinkable scenario, it’s difficult to imagine that Ariane 6 will have the spare capacity to begin Project Kuiper launches before 2025 or 2026.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, which is years behind schedule and unlikely to debut before late 2023 or 2024, might ironically be Amazon’s best bet for the first dedicated Project Kuiper launch, but only if its debut is near-flawless and doesn’t slip any further. Given that New Glenn will be Blue Origin’s first orbital rocket of any kind, more delays and issues (if not an outright failure) on the first launch are likely. New Glenn is thus also unlikely to be ready to launch large batches of Project Kuiper satellites until 2024 or 2025. Given the record of its suborbital New Shepard rocket, the odds are also against Blue Origin quickly ramping up the cadence of a far more complex orbital launch vehicle.
Only Atlas V appears to have any significant chance of beginning large-scale Project Kuiper launches before 2025. But ULA is shutting down Atlas V production to transition to Vulcan, so it’s impossible for Amazon to order more than nine of the rockets, as ULA.
Unfortunately for Amazon, in addition to the many rocket-side issues facing Project Kuiper, its satellite prototype delays will make it even harder for the company to begin large-scale launches sooner than later. SpaceX, now the proud owner of a majority of all working satellites in orbit, took around 21 months to go from launching its first two prototypes to its first batch of 60 operational Starlink satellites. The satellite design it settled on was almost nothing like the first two prototypes.
If Amazon’s first prototypes launch on Vulcan’s early-2023 debut, perform excellently, meet or exceed expectations after just a few months of testing, and are close to the final satellite design, Project Kuiper may still have a shot at manufacturing enough satellites to fill one or more launches in 2024. But if its first satellites run into major issues, Amazon’s decision to “[bring] up manufacturing of…production satellites [in parallel with prototype development]” could set it back months if it’s forced to redesign its satellites, find new suppliers, or significantly change the factory it’s already building.
Combined, Project Kuiper finds itself in an unenviable position. It’s thus unsurprising that as of October 2022, an Amazon executive appears to have changed their tune about using SpaceX rockets. Over the last ~13 months, SpaceX has become the single most productive launch provider in the world, besting the entire nation of China. On a quarterly basis, SpaceX now launches more useful mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. It’s also the only launch provider on Earth that can create spare capacity for last-minute customers by shuffling its own internal launch demands.
According to Dave Limp, senior vice president of devices and services at Amazon, Project Kuiper is willing to consider taking advantage of some of SpaceX’s unprecedented capabilities after it shunned the company entirely in earlier contracts and statements. Speaking in a Washington Post Live interview, Limp says that Amazon is “open to contracting with anyone” and understands “that heavy launch capacity is [and will likely remain] pretty constrained” for years to come.
Unfortunately, Limp began by falsely asserting that Falcon 9 was too small to have warranted earlier launch contracts, stating that it’s “probably at the low end of…the capacity that we need.” In an expendable configuration, Falcon 9 can launch more than 22 tons (~48,500 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO), while Ariane 6 is quoted at [PDF] 21.7 tons (~47,800 lb). While it hasn’t flown, SpaceX also offers an extended payload fairing that should more or less match Vulcan and Ariane 6’s largest fairings.
But Limp expressed interest in SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, which could likely match or come close to the payload volume of Ariane 6 and Vulcan and far exceed either rocket’s performance to LEO. In a configuration that would allow SpaceX to recover all three of Falcon Heavy’s boosters, almost guaranteeing that it would cost less than Vulcan or Ariane 6, the rocket would likely be able to launch around 40-50 tons (90,000-110,000 lb) to LEO. The Amazon executive even brought up SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket as a more desirable option for future Project Kuiper launches. Starship is designed to launch anywhere from 100 to 150 tons to LEO, should cost even less than Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, and will eventually feature a payload bay that dwarfs even New Glenn’s massive fairing.
Nonetheless, despite the promise of SpaceX, Amazon appears to be in no rush to hedge its bets on Vulcan, Ariane 6, and New Glenn. Only time will tell if its multi-billion-dollar gamble pays off.
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
