Connect with us
Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft stand vertical at their respective launch pads in December 2019 and January 2020. Crew Dragon has now performed two successful full-up launches to Starliner's lone partial failure. (Richard Angle) Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft stand vertical at their respective launch pads in December 2019 and January 2020. Crew Dragon has now performed two successful full-up launches to Starliner's lone partial failure. (Richard Angle)

News

SpaceX set to launch NASA astronauts first after Boeing narrowly avoids catastrophe in space

Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft stand vertical at their respective launch pads roughly six weeks apart. (Richard Angle)

Published

on

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.

The SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule and Boeing CTS-100 Starliner are pictured here during separate pad abort tests. (SpaceX/NASA)

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.

Advertisement
Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft sits atop a ULA Atlas V rocket at the LC-41 launch pad ahead of its doomed orbital flight test (OFT). (Richard Angle)

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.

Starliner successfully landed on December 22nd after a partial failure in orbit. (NASA – Bill Ingalls)

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.

As of February 2020, Crew Dragon has successfully docked with the ISS and completed two successful Falcon 9 launches in just nine months. (Richard Angle)

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.

Advertisement

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla launches new Model Y interior option

Produced at Gigafactory Shanghai, the update applies to all five-seat Premium Model Y configurations and started being seen on customer deliveries this week. The move marks the first major interior refresh for the compact crossover since its global debut.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Malaysia | X

Tesla has rolled out a striking new interior choice for its best-selling Model Y in China, replacing the long-familiar white cabin with a fresh option: Zen Grey.

Produced at Gigafactory Shanghai, the update applies to all five-seat Premium Model Y configurations and started being seen on customer deliveries this week. The move marks the first major interior refresh for the compact crossover since its global debut.

The Zen Grey interior swaps the classic black-and-white contrast for a softer, more unified palette. Seats, door panels, and center console trim now feature a warm light-grey tone that covers far more surface area than before.

Previously, black accents on the console, door handles, and lower dashboard are now color-matched in the same pebbled vegan leather, creating a brighter, less clinical cabin.

Tesla describes the material as durable and easy to maintain while delivering a noticeably more premium feel. Early photos and videos from Chinese owners show the new shade reflecting natural light beautifully, giving the spacious Model Y an even airier, more inviting atmosphere without sacrificing the minimalist design customers expect:

The change is not an added-cost upgrade but a direct replacement for the discontinued white interior on Shanghai-built vehicles. Customers configuring a new Model Y in China, Hong Kong, or Macau now see Zen Grey as the default light-colored choice.

The update also flows to export markets supplied by Giga Shanghai, including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Tesla has used its Chinese factory as an innovation hub before, and executives appear to be testing broader appeal with this subtler, warmer tone that avoids the high-maintenance reputation sometimes associated with bright white leather.

Beyond the interior, the refreshed Model Y from Shanghai includes minor exterior tweaks such as blacked-out badges on some trims and optional dark 20-inch wheels.

These changes arrive as Tesla faces stiff competition from domestic EV makers in its largest market. By refreshing the Model Y’s cabin without raising prices, the company is signaling continued commitment to value and constant improvement.

With over 1.2 million Model Y units already on Chinese roads, the Zen Grey launch gives existing owners a fresh talking point and new buyers another reason to choose Tesla. As deliveries ramp up this month, the updated interior is expected to become the dominant light-colored choice across the Asia-Pacific region.

Tesla has not yet confirmed whether the Zen Grey will reach Fremont, Austin, or Berlin-built Model Ys, but Shanghai’s track record suggests the option could spread quickly if customer feedback remains strong.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla launches 200mph Model S “Gold” Signature in invite-only purchase

Tesla’s final 350-unit Signature Edition closes the book on two cars that changed everything.

Published

on

By

Tesla has announced a super limited Signature Edition run of 250 Model S Plaid and 100 Model X Plaid units as an invite only purchase in a bid to give its original flagship vehicles a proper send-off.

When the Model S first launched in 2012, the first 1,000 units sold were “Signature” editions that required a $40,000 deposit and cost nearly $100,000 each. Those early buyers were Tesla’s first real believers. This new Signature Edition deliberately echoes that moment, bookending a 14-year run with numbered collector hardware.

Both models are finished in an exclusive Garnet Red paint not available on any current Tesla production vehicle, with gold Tesla T badges up front, a gold Plaid badge and Signature badge at the rear, and a white Alcantara interior featuring gold Plaid seat badges, gold piping, Signature-marked door sills, and a numbered dash plate. The Model S adds carbon ceramic brakes with gold calipers. Every unit ships with Tesla’s Luxe Package, bundling Full Self-Driving (Supervised), four years of Premium Service, free lifetime Supercharging, and a Signature Edition key fob. Both are priced at $159,420, a roughly $35,000 premium over standard Plaid inventory.

The discontinuation is part of a broader strategic shift. At Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call, Musk described the decision as “slightly sad” but necessary, saying: “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end with an honorable discharge, because we’re really moving into a future that is based on autonomy.”

The Fremont factory floor that built these cars is being converted to manufacture Optimus humanoid robots, with a target of one million units annually.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla FSD in Europe vs. US: It’s not what you think

Tesla FSD is approved in the Netherlands, but the European version differs from what US drivers use.

Published

on

By

Tesla FSD 14.3 [Credit: TESLARATI)

On April 10, 2026, the Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted Tesla the first European type approval for Full Self-Driving Supervised, making the Netherlands the first country on the continent to authorize Tesla’s semi-autonomous system for customer use on public roads.

As Teslarati reported, the RDW approval followed 18 months of testing, more than 1.6 million kilometers driven on EU roads, 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and documentation covering over 400 compliance requirements. Tesla Europe had been running public demo drives through cities like Amsterdam and Eindhoven since early 2026, giving passengers their first experience of the system on European streets.


The European version of FSD is not the same software US drivers use. The RDW’s own statement is direct, noting that the software versions and functionalities in the US and Europe “are therefore not comparable one-to-one.” We’ve compile a table below that captures the most significant differences between US-based Tesla FSD vs. European Tesla FSD that’s based on what regulators and Tesla have publicly confirmed.

Feature FSD US FSD Europe (Netherlands)
Regulatory framework Self-certification, post-market oversight Pre-market type approval required (UN R-171 + Article 39)
Hands requirement Hands-off permitted on highway Hands must be available to take over immediately
Auto turning from stop lights Available — navigates intersections, turns, and traffic signals autonomously Available in EU build — confirmed in Amsterdam demo footage handling unprotected turns and signalized intersections
Driving modes Multiple profiles including a more aggressive “Mad Max” mode EU build is more conservative by default and errs on the side of restraint when it cannot confirm the limit
Summon Available — Smart Summon navigates parking lots to driver Status unclear — not confirmed as part of the RDW-approved feature set; urban FSD approval targeted separately for 2027
Driver monitoring Camera-based eye tracking Stricter continuous monitoring with more frequent intervention alerts
Software version FSD v14.3 EU-specific builds that must be separately validated by RDW
Geographic restriction US, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, NZ, South Korea Netherlands only; EU-wide vote pending summer 2026
Subscription price $99/month €99/month
Full urban FSD scope Available Partial — separate urban application planned for 2027

The approval comes as Tesla is under real pressure to grow FSD subscriptions globally. Musk’s 2025 CEO compensation package, approved by shareholders, includes a milestone requiring 10 million active FSD subscriptions as one condition for his stock awards to vest. Tesla hit one million subscriptions during its Q4 2025 earnings call, which is a meaningful start, but still a long way from the target. Opening Europe as a market for subscriptions, rather than just hardware sales, directly accelerates that number.

Tesla has said it anticipates EU-wide recognition of the Dutch approval during summer 2026, which would extend FSD access to Germany, France, and other major markets through a mutual recognition process without each country repeating the full 18-month review. That timeline is Tesla’s projection, not a confirmed regulatory outcome. As Musk acknowledged at Davos in January 2026, “We hope to get Supervised Full Self-Driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.”

Continue Reading