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.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Tennessee.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
