News
SpaceX talks Moon mission as strategic stepping stone for Mars colony
Josh Brost, Senior Director of SpaceX’s Government Business Development was in attendance at a civil spaceflight conference in Washington D.C. yesterday, January 18, and provided a number of interesting details about SpaceX’s upcoming activities in 2018. Perhaps most intriguingly, he reiterated SpaceX’s interest in enabling exploration of the Moon and Mars, while also clarifying that the upcoming Falcon 9 upgrade will be the last major change to the vehicle for the indefinite future.
Although the audience may have been more focused on SpaceX’s potential lunar prospects, Brost provided a vision similar to CEO Elon Musk’s common-knowledge goal of Martian (and interplanetary) colonization. This lunar focus was in part evidenced by a pointed question from an audience member that triggered Brost’s subsequent suggestion that the Moon could be a more logical starting place for the company as it ramps up its deep space efforts and gradually slips beyond Earth orbit. This strategic and calculated extension of the aspirations of the launch company’s famous founder is a rational attempt to position SpaceX in ways that allow the company to derive as much value as possible from the US government’s recently revived interest in returning the US and its astronauts to the Moon.
-
- SpaceX’s 2017 BFS (now Starship) delivers cargo to a large lunar base. (SpaceX)
-
- Starship and a Martian city, circa 2017. (SpaceX)
To a large extent, his comments mesh with the vision Elon Musk reiterated at 2017’s September IAC.
SpaceX’s next-generation heavy-lift rocket and spaceship (BFR and BFS) are being designed to carry 150 metric tons into low Earth orbit while still recovering both the first and second stages, and will be purpose-built for rapid and complete reusability. BFR and BFS are also being intentionally designed to be relatively destination-agnostic. In other words, BFS will be capable of transporting cargo and eventually crew to a number of destinations in the solar system, be it the Moon, Mars, or beyond. The outer planets are almost certainly off limits for crew due to the sheer length of any journey beyond the orbit of Mars, but BFR, as it was discussed last year, would be capable of transporting unprecedented amounts of cargo almost anywhere in the solar system. Reusability is, of course, paramount to SpaceX’s operational intent with BFR/BFS; unless a very lucrative offer is made, it is highly unlikely that SpaceX will even consider expendable missions, thus partially limiting what the next-gen vehicle will be capable of.
Still, it will be an incredibly capable rocket even with full reusability. Add in the potential promise of mature in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), more simply the production of methane and oxygen propellant at the destination, and it will open a hundred entirely new worlds to serious scientific, exploratory, and economic prospecting throughout the solar system.
SpaceX’s massive BFR visualized taking to the sky. (SpaceX).
What’s next?
The question, then, is “when?” While Brost did not specifically provide any sort of timeline for BFR, aside from a brief statement on its readiness in “a few years,” he did describe in some detail the imminent end of serious Falcon 9 upgrades. A continual stream of upgrades and modifications has been one of the only real constants with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket: the original Falcon 9 is in almost every respect a completely different rocket when compared to the Falcon 9 Full Thrust (FT/1.2) of the present. However, one final leap is expected for Falcon 9, this time almost exclusively intended to improve the vehicle’s reliability and reusability as SpaceX rapidly approaches its first flights of Crew Dragon and dreams of rapid and repeated booster reuse.
While it was a small detail in an obscure sentence of one of several hour-long discussions, Brost specifically stated this:
Brost: with Block 5, goal it to lock down the design and fly the vehicle at very high flight rates. Innovation will focus on designing and testing BFR.
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) January 18, 2018
This is arguably the most exciting tidbit provided to us by SpaceX. While it was undeniably vague and rather less than crystal-clear, it can be interpreted as something like this: once Block 5 has been introduced and begun to fly and refly both regularly and successfully, the vast majority of SpaceX’s launch vehicle development expertise will begin to focus intensely on the development and testing of BFR and BFS.
Statements from just last week made by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell strengthen this intuitive leap considerably, because BFR and BFS are liable to require a considerable amount of attention as they proceed through design maturation and eventually begin physical hardware testing in Texas.
Shotwell’s comments implied that SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch facilities, currently under construction, would be ready to support “vehicle tests” as early as late 2018/early 2019. Comments from earlier in 2017 indicate that SpaceX (and Shotwell) perceive Boca Chica as a near-perfect location for BFR launches (and thus BFR testing, as well). Finally, Brost’s implication that SpaceX’s exceptional team of brilliant and innovative launch vehicle engineers would be refocused on BFR soon after Block 5 was stable also meshes with this rough timeline. If Falcon 9 Block 5 does indeed debut within the “next few months” as Brost stated, it will have likely reached some level of design and operational maturity by the end of 2018, assuming SpaceX’s expected launch cadence.
-
- SpaceX’s Falcon 9 ahead of the launch of Zuma. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- A Falcon 9 lifts off from LC-40 carrying the highly secretive Zuma spacecraft. Hispasat 30W will launch from the same pad in just a few days. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 1035 conducts its second landing after successfully launching CRS-13 on December 15. Improved reusability will be a huge focus of SpaceX in 2018. (NASA)
As of right now, SpaceX is already looking at a very busy February, and currently has as many as three commercial launches scheduled within a period of maybe three weeks (GovSat-1, PAZ, and Hispasat), maybe even four if Falcon Heavy completes its first static fire later this weekend. Musk estimated that SpaceX would complete 30 missions in 2018, and a cadence anywhere near three launches per month (let alone four) would easily push SpaceX past that goal and provide the company dozens of opportunities to test, launch, recover, and relaunch their new Block 5 version of Falcon 9. As such, while BFR is probably not going to reach fully integrated hardware development or testing in 2018, it is certainly a distinct possibility, and 2019 is far more promising for the company’s interplanetary aspirations.
For now, SpaceX’s 2018 focus is quite explicitly centered on ensuring the reliability of its Crew Dragon – set to debut NET August 2018 – and Falcon 9 as it strives to complete the development of both vehicles. Up next on the company’s busy schedule is another attempt at Falcon Heavy’s inaugural static fire on Saturday afternoon, as well as the flight-proven launch of GovSat-1/SES-16, currently NET January 30.
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings live from both coasts.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
