News
SpaceX set to launch NASA astronauts first after Boeing narrowly avoids catastrophe in space
SpaceX is set to become the first private company to launch NASA astronauts as few as three months from now, all but guaranteed after Boeing’s competing Starliner spacecraft narrowly avoided a catastrophe in space on its orbital launch debut.
The ultimate purpose of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is to ensure that the US is once again able to launch its own astronauts into orbit and to the International Space Station (ISS) – a capability the country has not possessed since it prematurely canceled the Space Shuttle in 2011. In a logical step, NASA decided to fund two independent companies to ensure that astronaut launch capabilities would be insulated against any single failure, ultimately awarding contracts to Boeing and SpaceX in 2014. Boeing did actually try to have Congress snub SpaceX back in 2014 and solely award the contract to Starliner, but the company thankfully failed.
As a result, SpaceX beating Boeing on the (not-a-) race to launch NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) would represent an immense and deeply embarrassing upset in the traditional aerospace industry – essentially a case of David and Goliath. For the better part of a decade, Congress, most industry officials, and Boeing itself have argued ad nauseum the Starliner spacecraft was clearly a far safer bet than anything built by SpaceX – Boeing, obviously, has far more experience (“heritage”) in the spaceflight industry. However, multiple “catastrophic” failures during Boeing’s recent Starliner ‘Orbital Flight Test’ (OFT) paint a far uglier picture.
As its PR team and executives will constantly remind anyone within earshot, Boeing helped build the first stage of the Saturn V rocket, while a company it bought years after the fact (Rockwell) did technically buy the company (North American) that built the spacecraft (Apollo CSM) that carried NASA astronauts from the Earth to the Moon (and back). Rockwell (acquired by Boeing) also built all five of NASA’s Space Shuttle orbiters.
In the 1990s, Boeing – set to lose a competition to build an expendable rocket for the US military – acquired McDonnell Douglas at the last second, slapping a Boeing sticker on the Delta IV rocket – designed and built by MD. Boeing then conspired to steal trade secrets from Lockheed Martin (bidding Atlas V) and used that stolen info to mislead the USAF about the real cost of Delta IV, thus securing the more lucrative of two possible contracts. This is all to point out the simple fact that Boeing has far less real experience designing spacecraft than it tends to act like it does.
As such, it’s substantially less surprising than it might otherwise be that Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft has had such a rocky orbital launch debut. Preceded just a matter of weeks by a quality assurance failure that prevented one of Starliner’s four parachutes from deploying after an otherwise-successful pad abort test, a second Starliner spacecraft launched atop an Atlas V rocket on its orbital launch debut (OFT) on December 20th, 2019. Atlas V performed flawlessly but immediately after Starliner separated from the rocket, things went very wrong.
Bad software ultimately caused the spacecraft to perform thousands of uncommanded maneuvering thruster burns, depleting a majority of its propellant before Boeing was able to intervene. Starliner managed to place itself in low Earth orbit (LEO), but by then it had nowhere near enough propellant left to rendezvous and dock with the ISS – one of the most crucial purposes of the uncrewed flight test. Unable to complete that part of the mission, Boeing instead did a few small tests over the course of 48 hours in orbit before commanding the spacecraft’s reentry and landing on December 22nd.
But wait, there’s more!
As it turns out, although both NASA and Boeing inexplicably withheld the information from the public for more than two months, Boeing’s OFT Starliner spacecraft reportedly almost suffered a second major software failure just hours before reentry. According to NASA and Boeing comments in a press conference held only after news of that second failure broke after an advisory panel broached the issue in February 2020, a second Starliner software bug – caught only because the first failure forced Boeing to double-check its code – could have had far more catastrophic consequences.
NASA officials stated that had the second bug not been caught, some of Starliner’s thruster valves would have been frozen, either entirely preventing or severely hampering the spacecraft’s detached trunk from properly maneuvering in orbit. Apparently, that service module (carrying fuel, abort engines, a solar array, and more) could have crashed into the crew module shortly after detaching from it. Unsurprisingly, that ‘recontact’ could have severely damaged the Starliner crew capsule, potentially making reentry impossible (or even fatal) if its relatively fragile heat shield bore the brunt of that impact.
SpaceX has undeniably suffered its own significant failures, most notably when flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule C201 exploded moments before a static fire test, but the company has already proven that it fixed the source of the failure with the spacecraft’s second successful launch on a Falcon 9 rocket. Ultimately, it’s becoming nearly impossible to rationally argue that Boeing’s Starliner will be safer than SpaceX’s Crew Dragon – let alone worth the 40% premium Boeing is charging NASA and the US taxpayer.
According to Ars Technica’s Eric Berger, Crew Dragon’s inaugural astronaut launch is now tentatively scheduled as early as late-April to late-May 2020. Paperwork – not technical hurdles – is currently the source of that uncertainty, and all Demo-2 mission hardware (Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon) is either already in Florida or days away from arriving.
Due to the combination of similar software failures Starliner suffered during its first and only launch, Boeing now has to review the entirety of the spacecraft’s software – more than a million lines of code – before NASA will allow the company to launch again. There’s also a very good chance that Boeing will now have to repeat the Orbital Flight Test, potentially incurring major delays. In short, it would take nothing less than a miracle – or NASA making a public mockery of itself for Boeing’s benefit – for Starliner to launch astronauts before SpaceX.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk has acknowledged that early discussions with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) could bring the company into his ambitious Terafab semiconductor project, signaling a possible partnership with the world’s leading contract chipmaker.
Musk confirmed that early talks are underway, but as of right now, they are “just discussions.” There is no confirmation of a deal nor dismissal of the possibility of one, leaving open the prospect of one of the largest advanced-chip collaborations under discussion in the U.S.
@wholemars Just discussions, but something may come of it
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2026
The report that speculated on potential discussions between Terafab and TSMC comes from Tim Culpan, who outlined a few ways the collaboration could operate. One is TSMC using the project as an “anchor customer” for future facilities in Texas, potentially contributing process expertise, operational know-how, or capacity while Terafab provides capital, long-term purchase commitments, or both.
Tesla and SpaceX jointly developed the Terafab project, with Intel already participating on the tech side. Elon Musk announced the project in March, and it intends to produce more than one terawatt of AI compute capacity annually once fully built.
Company statements place the first phase at approximately $16.8 billion in cost, with later filings pointing to a total that could reach well into the tens of billions across multiple stages.
Intel joined the effort in April 2026 and is expected to supply its 14A manufacturing process for the full-scale plant.
Musk has said existing suppliers, including Samsung and TSMC, remain important for near-term needs; Tesla already has production arrangements with Samsung for AI5 and AI6 chips, but that future demand from Optimus robots, Cybercab vehicles, and planned space-based data centers will eventually exceed what the global industry can currently deliver.
Terafab is positioned as the long-term answer to that projected shortfall, and Tesla did something similar during COVID to avoid a chip shortage. This is just a much larger-scale solution.
If the partnership were to materialize, it would add TSMC’s industry-leading strategies to a project that already combines Tesla’s and SpaceX’s capital and offtake with Intel’s process technology. For now, the only public confirmation is Musk’s brief acknowledgement that conversations are occurring.
Tesla’s early strategy for charging units operating within its Robotaxi fleet reveals that the company surely has not lost any of that scrappy DNA that took it from an unlikely success story to the most valuable carmaker in the world.
An observer at a Tesla Supercharger in Austin spotted ten total Robotaxi vehicles arrive: one Cybercab and nine Model Y units. A Tesla employee was waiting at the lot and allowed each unit to park itself; every car that arrived had nobody in it.
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
The Tesla employee would walk around and plug each car in, adjusting the parking if needed:
So look at what I found. This is how Tesla charges unsupervised robotaxis at a public supercharger. Here is a driverless Cybercab showing up with no one in it. There are 9 other Model Ys that showed up too. A Tesla employee is walking around and plugging each of them in. She also moves the cars if they are not positioned well enough to charge. I love this process. One person charges multiple robotaxis at once
— Abhimanyu Yadav (@WorldlyReviewer) October 3, 2026
It’s a very interesting strategy, but extremely understandable at this early point in the Robotaxi program. It’s only been out for about 15 months, and Cybercab just entered the fleet in early September.
On top of that, Tesla is still working tirelessly on its wireless charging apparatus, and a new patent was just published regarding that product last week.
However, this is just another example of how Tesla still has plenty of that scrappy DNA leftover from the “production hell” days, when CEO Elon Musk slept on the floor of the factory, employees were working crazy hours, Tesla was building Sprung Structures to build cars in, and the company was tiptoeing on the brink of bankruptcy.
@Teslarati Sheer magnitude of the entire production system is hard to appreciate. Almost every element of production is >75% automated. Only wire harnesses & general assembly, which are <10% of production costs, are primarily manual.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 12, 2020
For now, Tesla is utilizing a simple system for recharging its ride-hailing vehicles, and that is a Tesla employee doing it manually until another solution presents itself. Sure, it’s not the most high-tech thing, and it certainly is not what people might have expected at this point in time, but it works, and it’s keeping the entire suite running.
Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi service hours by pushing the time back by one hour, keeping the ride-hailing service operational until 11 p.m., one hour later than previously.
CEO Elon Musk confirmed the change and offered a specific reason the expansion has been gradual: the system still needs to reliably avoid small pets that are difficult to see after dark, as they commonly blend into the color of the road, especially when they’re grey.
The latest adjustment restores only a fraction of the operating window the service once held. When paid Robotaxi rides began in Austin on June 22, 2025, vehicles ran from 6 a.m. to midnight.
In September 2025, Tesla lengthened the day to a 2 a.m. close, producing a 20-hour window that stayed in place for most of the following year. By early August of this year, the cutoff had already been pulled back; an August 26 update formalized hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. across Austin and several other markets.
The October move to 11 p.m. therefore leaves the Austin day one hour shorter than the original launch schedule and three hours shorter than the 2025 peak.
Musk addressed the constraint directly after the announcement. “The main thing we’re trying to solve is making sure that we don’t run over pets when they’re hard to see at night,” he wrote. “Literally trying to avoid grey kittens on grey tarmac in the dark.”
Robotaxi operating hours moved from 10pm to 11pm.
The main thing we’re trying to solve is making sure that we don’t run over pets when they’re hard to see at night. Literally trying to avoid grey kittens on grey tarmac in the dark.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2026
The example points to a low-contrast perception problem in which a small animal can blend into the road surface under limited lighting.
Tesla’s vehicles rely on cameras and neural-network processing rather than lidar; Musk has previously argued that advanced vision software can extract useful information even in low light by analyzing photon counts, but the pet-detection case remains the stated limiter in later hours.
The modest schedule change arrives alongside faster growth in the purpose-built Cybercab fleet. Texas registration data tracked by observers showed the Austin Cybercab count rising sharply in recent weeks, reaching 169 vehicles after more than 100 were added in a short span.
Tesla has indicated that a broader shift toward 24-hour operation is tied to the upcoming FSD v15 software release expected this month on Robotaxi vehicles. Until that capability is validated for the edge cases Musk described, the company continues to add service time incrementally rather than jumping straight to overnight coverage.
The one-hour extension gives Austin riders a later option for evening trips while the underlying detection work continues.
Elon Musk teases TSMC as potential Terafab partner
Tesla reveals early Robotaxi charging strategy, showing scrappy DNA
