News
Report: SpaceX to launch at least five back-to-back Crew Dragon missions for NASA
Update: Wasting no time at all, NASA has confirmed the Ars Technica report one day later, announcing that rookie astronauts Nicole Mann and Josh Cassada have been reassigned from Boeing Starliner missions to SpaceX’s Crew-5 Crew Dragon launch – currently no earlier than August 2022.
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger reports that NASA has begun the process of moving a number of astronauts assigned to Boeing’s ailing Starliner spacecraft to a SpaceX Crew Dragon mission scheduled no earlier than August 2022.
Per sources close to Berger, NASA has chosen to reassign two rookie astronauts to Crew Dragon as hopes of a crewed Starliner launch – and thus an opportunity for them to gain hands-on spaceflight experience – in the next 6-12 months continue to wither. Barring surprises, the implied change of plans behind those actions means that SpaceX now appears to be scheduled to fly five operational NASA Crew Dragon missions back to back before Boeing’s Starliner flies a single astronaut – let alone its first operational mission with four crew aboard.
In December 2019, nine months after Crew Dragon’s own uncrewed March 2019 debut, Starliner lifted off for the first time on a ULA Atlas V rocket. However, whereas Crew Dragon performed a practically flawless orbital launch, space station rendezvous, docking, departure, reentry, and splashdown on its first try, Starliner’s Orbital Flight Test (OFT) went horribly wrong as soon as it separated from Atlas V.
Due to shoddy prelaunch testing that failed to detect several gaping holes in Starliner’s software, the spacecraft effectively lost control as soon as it was under its own power. Aside from making ground communication and control far harder, Starliner burned through most of its propellant and pushed most of its maneuvering thrusters past their design limits in the first hour or two after launch. Due to the catastrophic software failure and lack of propellant margins, NASA unsurprisingly called off a planned space station rendezvous and docking attempt and Boeing ultimately ordered Starliner to reenter a few days after launch.
Mere hours before reentry, Boeing apparently detected and fixed another major software error at the last second, potentially preventing Starliner’s propulsion and service module from smashing into the capsule’s fragile heat shield and dooming the spacecraft to burn up during reentry. Ultimately, it’s likely that the only reason Boeing didn’t suffer a total loss of vehicle (LOV) during Starliner’s OFT debut spacecraft was dumb luck. Had the initial clock error been worse, Starliner could have failed to reach orbit entirely or burned through all of its propellant, resulting in an uncontrolled reentry. Had there been no clock issue, it’s hard to imagine that Boeing’s software team would have attempted the panicked, impromptu bug hunt that detected and fixed the service module recontact issue.
Now, 22 months after Starliner’s catastrophic OFT, Boeing has been forced to stand down from a second self-funded orbital flight test (OFT-2) due to the last-second discovery of more than a dozen malfunctioning valves on the second spacecraft’s service module. Aside from raising the question of how Boeing and NASA yet again failed to detect a glaring Starliner issue until the day of launch, Starliner’s valve issues appear likely to cause another multi-month delay as Boeing is forced to investigate the problem, find the root cause, and implement a fix on all impacted service modules.
NASA reassigning some of the astronauts scheduled to helm Starliner on its Crewed Flight Test (CFT) and first operational mission to Crew Dragon’s August 2022 Crew-5 launch seemingly implies that the space agency is not confident that Boeing will have completed Starliner OFT-2, passed extensive post-flight reviews, and readied another Starliner for CFT by Q3 2022. Given that NASA took some 14 months to OK Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 crewed flight test after Demo-1’s March 2019 success and a catastrophic April 2019 failure during a ground test of the recovered capsule, it’s not unreasonable to assume that NASA will take about a year after OFT-2 to approve Starliner’s first crewed flight test.
If significant issues arise during OFT-2, which is now unlikely to occur before early 2022, a year-long gap is even more likely. Ultimately, that means that there is now a significant chance that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft will complete not just five – but six – back-to-back operational NASA astronaut launches before Starliner is ready for its first operational ferry mission. SpaceX, in other words, is now expected to singlehandedly hold the line and ensure biannual NASA access to and from the International Space Station (ISS) for more than two years despite charging NASA $2 billion less than Boeing (~$5B vs ~$3B) to develop Crew Dragon.
Elon Musk
Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves
Tesla has begun building production quality Optimus robots in Fremont and revealed its training plan.
Tesla has started building Optimus on the high volume line it set up inside its Fremont factory, and the company says the robots coming off it are the first that meet the bar for a real product. “The bots coming off this line are the first production-quality bots that we have manufactured,” Tesla wrote in its third quarter shareholder letter, adding that it has “proven that the current manufacturing process for Optimus is suitable for a commercial product.”
The line sits in space that built the Model S and Model X until this spring. Tesla cleared the old vehicle line in 46 days, as Teslarati reported in July, to make room for robot production sized for one million units a year. On Wednesday’s earnings call, Elon Musk said most of the equipment for that capacity is already in Fremont, with output set to climb toward roughly 20,000 robots a week as the line ramps.
Musk described the ramp as a classic S curve. “The growth of Optimus is an S curve, but the initial curve is a shallow slope,” he said. The team is now refining the robot’s AI, electromechanical design, reliability and service life, and Musk expects that work to be finished by the end of next year, when Tesla plans to start delivering Optimus to outside companies for dangerous, repetitive and around the clock jobs.
The most interesting part of the call was how Tesla plans to teach the robots. Its cars send real driving data back to the AI team from millions of vehicles, but Optimus has no fleet like that yet. “A big difference with Optimus versus the cars is we don’t have this vast fleet of cars from which we can gather training data,” Musk said. Tesla’s answer is an Optimus Academy, where 10,000 to 20,000 robots will practice a wide range of tasks and feed what they learn into the next version of the model. Every unit off the Fremont line becomes a source of that training data.
Smarter hardware is on the way too. Tesla plans to put its AI5 chip into Optimus next year, and Musk said a new Optimus video should arrive within one or two months showing the robot completing tasks driven by AI rather than preprogrammed motions. He took aim at rival humanoid demos that only run scripted routines, saying those would not hold up in the real world.
The supply chain is lining up behind the program. In September, Tesla certified Tuopu, Joyson and Sanhua as mass production partners for Optimus components. A far larger Optimus factory is also rising at Giga Texas, where drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer showed the steel frame nearing completion, and Musk has pegged that plant’s long term target at 10 million robots a year.
Tesla executives also said Optimus production costs are trending toward the expected manufacturing cost of Cybercab, a sign the robot is being engineered for volume from the start. The hands remain the toughest piece of the design, a point Musk also made at the X Takeover event earlier this month, as Teslarati covered at the time, and that is where much of the current engineering effort is focused.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
