News
Why does SpaceX market space better than NASA?
NASA may be truly making progress, but when compared to SpaceX, it seems more like thus far, they just have a guitar amp that “goes to 11”.
Unless you live under a rock (where exactly are these rocks, anyhow?), you’ve heard the news that SpaceX completed the 4th successful first stage landing of its Falcon 9 rocket after launching to a very high orbit. This was the third one in a row to land on an oceangoing droneship, setting the event up for a pathway to becoming routine business.
Waiting for Falcon 9 at the Park
I was in Florida last week and had the opportunity to go to Jetty Park in Cape Canaveral to watch the launch on its first scheduled date of Thursday, May 26th.
Unfortunately, I had to catch a flight before the next launch window opened after the first one was scrubbed, and I ended up catching the live stream from home on Friday; however, I still don’t regret having rearranged my flights to be there Thursday. Seeing the enthusiasm for the launch first-hand isn’t something I could have fully appreciated from a webcast.
Cars were piled in all over the park by the time the original launch time arrived. People were under sun shades, having picnics, and there were even a few tailgaters – an awesome concept in itself. The only damper is the inability to guarantee the launch will actually happen as scheduled, but since when has that impeded a viable tailgating excuse?
I’m not sure whether this type of activity happens for all launches, but it made me think about some of the discussions and my observations from earlier in the week.
SpaceX at the Space Congress
I also attended the first day’s events for the 44th Space Congress wherein commercial space technology was the primary topic. Bob Cabana, former space shuttle astronaut and current director of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, was the keynote speaker to kick off the event.
While taking questions, an audience member mentioned that her neighbor thought NASA had been “shut down”, and more audience members concurred that they’d had similar discussions with others. The purpose of the question was to gather Cabana’s opinion on why people weren’t more aware of NASA’s activities, but he didn’t entirely have an answer. I later overheard him speaking to someone else about how they were doing so many “great things” and didn’t understand why people weren’t more aware of them. As a SpaceX enthusiast, of course, I found the problem amusing. I mean, rockets involve at least 99 problems, but SpaceX does not have one with publicity. [Sorry, I had to.]
However, I still questioned why SpaceX was having an awareness impact on space travel that NASA, in all its social media, outreach efforts, and resources couldn’t seem to mirror. Was it that the technology SpaceX was developing more reminiscent of Hollywood and science fiction? Was it all just better marketing overall? Better video music?
Cue the First Panel
After more questions and a short break, the panel on the progress being made in NASA’s Commercial Crew program began with guests Danom Buck from Boeing and Benji Reed from SpaceX.
Boeing’s Commercial Crew capsule, CST-100 Starliner. Credit: BLM Nevada under CC by 2.0.
The Commercial Crew program involves the development of the next generation of transport technology for human space travel to and from the International Space Station (and eventually beyond). Or in other words, it’s the program to get America launching people from American soil again rather than buying rocket seats from the Russians.
The overall panel discussion was interesting, but I will admit that I kept waiting for Boeing to get to the “good” part. 
As a member of the general public, my interpretation of their technology was that it was a reworked version of the capsules used on the Apollo program and not much else. Their landing system consisted of high-speed-impact capable air bags versus SpaceX’s propulsive landing, i.e., “hovering”, Dragon capsule.
While I understand that there are significant improvements in the works with Boeing’s craft, I know I’m not the only one to be unmoved by the lack of apparent novelty in the landing system, particularly because I had recently seen this video of Elon Musk responding to an MIT student’s question comparing SpaceX’s system to Boeing’s:
https://youtu.be/PULkWGHeIQQ?t=48m7s
I kept waiting for the right question to break down the professionalism between the two company representatives (“Fight! Fight! Fight!”), but alas, nothing of the sort happened. I wasn’t entirely convinced that Danum was very excited about Boeing’s technology, either. Maybe I wasn’t being fair to Boeing. After all, Benji’s presentation began with this familiar SpaceX recap video:
Crossover Landing Technology Between Dragon and Falcon 9
Credit: SpaceX
I did get a chance to ask Benji my own question wherein I inquired about how much technology crosses over between the Dragon capsule’s propulsive landing system and the Falcon 9’s first stage landing system. I was curious whether it was mostly just software sharing since landing the crafts were likely to use similar calculations, but the equipment involved was too different to be relatable.
His response consisted of an explanation about how the development environment at SpaceX is set up to encourage collaboration among systems engineers (open floor layout, connected teams next to one another). Implied answer: He either wasn’t sure specifically but assumed there was some crossover, or he knew some specifics, but wasn’t going to give them for one reason or another. Or perhaps it was some mix of the two.
Cue Lunch and the Next Panel
The speaker during lunch was Col. Eric Krystkowiak, the 45th Space Wing Launch Group Commander. The 45th Space Wing Launch Group is located at Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida where the May 27th Falcon 9 lifted off from. The first Falcon 9 ground landing also took place there, something Col. Krystkowiak spoke about during his presentation: “They’re thinking…still can’t believe the Air Force let us do that.”
The Air Force’s customer service considerations.
As a lifelong Air Force brat, I may have been partial in my reception to the talk due to the familiar social gathering “zone” it reminded me of.
The presentation format and overall humor were very good (isn’t anything that quotes Seinfeld?), and although they have to remain impartial as government representatives, it certainly felt as though the Air Force genuinely liked the SpaceX team and was leaning towards their business model to support in their commercial spaceflight customer service role moving forward. Perhaps they just appreciate SpaceX’s wherewithal and determination to push through bureaucracy to really enable innovation.
Oh, and I think someone asked about the lawsuit SpaceX filed against the Air Force, but I don’t remember the specifics of either the question or the answer. Hey, it was lunch time!
The Journey Ends
Jumping forward again to the original Thursday launch date, once it was clear the launch was not happening before my flight home (shout out to the very nice lady listening to the AM radio updates), I had to book it to the airport. Then, ironically, it turned out my Uber driver had spent seventeen years as a defense contractor with Raytheon working on satellite technologies.
It really was a space kind of week!
Space geek that I am, I took the opportunity to have him provide first hand insight into what that type of job was like. I was particularly interested in why contract work like that always went over time and over budget. His answer was that essentially, when NASA approaches its contractors, they are asking for things to be done that have never been done before, thus it’s hard to predict exactly what the future will hold as far as the development of the technology.
Fair enough, but once again, SpaceX shines here. There’s never been a company quite like them before, doing quite the things they’re doing in quite the way they’re doing them.
Maybe just being first has its merits? After all, history tends to reward the winners. Most Americans don’t know who the first American in space was, but they know the Russians beat us there to begin with, and they know we beat everyone to the Moon. Then again, Sally Ride tends to be mistaken by Americans as the first woman in space, but Russian Valentina Tereshkova was actually first.
The question of what makes SpaceX so different in marketing space technology is still a difficult one for me as my personal reasons for admiring their progress has little to do with the aesthetics of the achievements. I admire the true progress they’re making and the relatability of what they’re developing to what their larger goals are.
NASA may be truly making progress towards a “Journey to Mars”, but when compared to the advancements SpaceX has achieved, it seems more like thus far, they just have a guitar amp that “goes to 11”.
Thoughts, anyone?
Author’s Note: I’ve uploaded more pics of the Space Congress and the park on launch day to my Flickr account. Nothing spectacular – just FYI.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Tesla Diner is throwing a birthday party with a Franz-signed special treat
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
