News
SpaceX urges White House to foster public-private partnerships in space
Earlier this year, the White House announced plans to reestablish the National Space Council (NSC), an advising body that dates back to the creation of NASA in 1958. The council convened for the first time on October 5 and invited several central figures in US spaceflight, including SpaceX’s President and COO Gwynne Shotwell.
In a brief but powerful speech to the Council, Shotwell urged the US Federal government to apply the lessons learned from NASA’s successful private-public partnerships to efforts to expand human presence in Low Earth Orbit and beyond. Those successful partnerships include NASA COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services), which funded SpaceX to develop its Cargo Dragon spacecraft to resupply the ISS, and the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) that funded SpaceX for the development of their crewed Dragon 2 spacecraft. In terms of efficiency and speed, both programs have indeed been extraordinarily successful, despite often maligned delays.
As a brief example of the insignificance of SpaceX’s Commercial Crew delays, one needs to look no further than NASA’s Space Launch System. Described in early 2011 to be pursuing operational readiness no later than December 2016, SLS is now extremely unlikely to conduct its first launch until well into 2020. A reasonable cost estimate spreads the development costs ($30 billion) over 30 years of operations, assumes an optimistic one launch per year for the vehicle, and arrives at an astounding final figure of $5 billion per SLS launch.
The development funds NASA awarded SpaceX for both Cargo Dragon, Falcon 9, and Crew Dragon were estimated to be no more than $7.3 billion from 2006 to the last Cargo Dragon mission currently scheduled for 2024. Even if this figure swells to $10 billion once operational crewed flights to the ISS begin in 2018 or 2019, the entire cost of NASA’s support of SpaceX would equate to two launches of SLS total.
NASA slipped a sly glimpse of Dragon 2 construction into their live coverage SpaceX’s CRS-12 launch. On the left is a Dragon 2 pressure vessel, while on the right is the vehicle’s “trunk”. (NASA)
Shotwell made sure to avoid the topic of SLS entirely, instead choosing to highlight the benefits of cost and speed public-private partnerships could provide for deep space communications and interplanetary cargo transport. This marks the second time that a ranking member of SpaceX has mentioned a possible public-private program for deep space communications, something that will inevitably need to improve as the commercial spaceflight apparatus extends its reach beyond Earth. SpaceX is currently developing satellite technology to enable a massive orbital Internet constellation around Earth, and the company is obviously interested in leveraging that R&D to strengthen Earth-Mars and Earth-Moon networks into a more robust communications backbone. Secretary of Transport Elaine Chao and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also slipped in words of excitement and interest in SpaceX’s recently revealed concept of point to point Earth transportation with their BFR system.
This meeting of the NSC also focused heavily on the domestic and regulatory apparatus for commercial space operations. Shotwell and Blue Origin’s CEO Bob Smith both suggested that the FAA’s current rules and regulations regarding commercial spaceflight ought to be reviewed and potentially updated to better account for a future of reusable commercial launch vehicles. Shotwell subtly maligned the often-tedious process of applying for FAA launch permits, pointing to the fact that even slight changes to permits would force companies to file entirely new applications, often taking six months or longer. SpaceX, with its rapid development and deployment of reusable rockets and an ever-increasing launch cadence, is more than ever before at odds with the FAA’s slow and unforgiving permitting processes.
SpaceX’s BFR Earth transport concept would undoubtedly clash head-on with the FAA’s current system of rocket regulations. (SpaceX)
Intriguingly, Council members Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, and Elaine Chao all expressed a desire to ease the burden of anachronistic regulations on the commercial space industry. More interesting still, the commercial space panel ended with what effectively sounded like a handshake deal between the Vice President, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review current commercial spaceflight regulations and report the results of those reviews to the NSC in no more than 45 days.
It remains to be seen if this verbal commitment translates into an official review, but it is at a minimum encouraging to hear ranking members of the current White House administration so openly express support for SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corp., and American commercial spaceflight in general.
The First Meeting of the National Space Council can be seen in the embed below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2jVG76S7g
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
