SpaceX has announced that BFR's first crewed lunar voyage will be funded by billionaire Yasuka Maezawa and will include as many as 10 additional passengers. (SpaceX)

News

SpaceX and NASA accidentally set the stage for a new race to the Moon

Published

7 years ago

September 28, 2018

Eric Ralph

Almost entirely driven by chance, SpaceX and NASA may soon find themselves in an unintentional race to return humans to the Moon for the first time in half a century.

Both entities – SpaceX with its next-generation BFR and NASA with its Shuttle-derived SLS – are tentatively targeting 2023 for their similar circumlunar voyages, in which NASA astronauts and private individuals could theoretically travel around the Moon within just months of each other, showcasing two utterly dissimilar approaches to space exploration.

SpaceX’s updated BFR spaceship seen cresting over the Moon’s limb. (SpaceX)

Over the course of no fewer than seven years of development, NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft have run into an unrelenting barrage of issues, effectively delaying the system’s launch debut at a rate equivalent to or even faster than the passage of time itself. In other words, every month recently spent working on the vehicle seems to have reliably corresponded with at least an additional month of delays for the launch system.

Why these incessant delays continue to occur is an entire story in itself and demands the acknowledgment of some uncomfortable and inconvenient realities about the state of NASA’s human spaceflight program in the 21st century, but that is a story is for another time.

: SLS. (NASA)

: NASA’s Orion spacecraft, European Service Module, and ICPS upper stage. (NASA)

A different kind of paper rocket

Returning to SLS, a brief overview is in order to properly contextualize what exactly the rocket and spacecraft are and what exactly their development has cost up to now. SLS is comprised of four major hardware segments.

The Core Stage: A massive liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket booster, this section is essentially a lengthened version of the retired Space Shuttle’s familiar orange propellant tank, while the stage’s four engines are quite literally taken from stores of mothballed Space Shuttle hardware and will be ingloriously expended after each launch (SLS is 100% expendable).
Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs): Minimally modified copies of the SRBs used during the Space Shuttle program, SLS’ SRBs have slightly more solid propellant and have had all hints of reusability removed, whereas Space Shuttle boosters deployed parachutes and were reused after landing in the Atlantic Ocean.

The Upper Stage (Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System, ICPS): ICPS is a slightly modified version of ULA’s off-the-shelf Delta IV upper stage.
The Orion spacecraft and European Service Module: Borrowing heavily from the Apollo Command and Service Modules that took humanity to the Moon in the 1960s and 70s, Orion has been in funded development in one form or another for more than 12 years, with just one partial flight-test to call its own. Orion’s development has cost the U.S. approximately $16 billion since 2006, with another $4-6 billion expected between now and 2023, a sum that doesn’t account for the costs of production and operations once development is complete.

: The Orion spacecraft and ESM. (NASA)

For the SLS core stage and SRBs, a generous bottom-rung estimate indicates that $14 billion has been spent on the rocket itself between 2011 and 2018, not including many billions more spent refurbishing and modifying the rocket’s aging Saturn and Shuttle-derived launch infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center. Of the many distressing patterns that appear in the above descriptions of SLS hardware, most notable is a near-obsessive dependence upon “heritage” hardware that has already been designed and tested – in some cases even manufactured.

Despite cobbling together or reusing as many mature components, facilities, and workforces as possible and relying on slightly-modified commercial hardware at every turn, SLS and Orion will somehow end up costing the United States more than $30 billion dollars before it has completed a single full launch; potentially rising beyond $40 billion by the time the system is ready to launch NASA astronauts.

Moonward bound

SLS’ first crewed mission, known as Exploratory Mission-2 (EM-2), brings us to the title – NASA’s mission planning has settled on sending a crew of four astronauts on what is known as a Free Lunar Return trajectory in the Orion spacecraft, essentially a single flyby of the Moon. Official NASA statements appear to be sending mixed messages on the schedule for EM-2’s launch, with September 2018 presentations indicating 2022 while a late-August blog post suggests that the crewed circumlunar mission is targeting launch in 2023.

As it happens, SpaceX announced its own plans for a (private) crewed circumlunar voyage less than two weeks ago. Funded in large part by Japanese billionaire Yasuka Maezawa, SpaceX’s hopes to send 10+ people to the Moon on its next-generation BFR launch vehicle, comprised of a fully-reusable booster and spaceship. Deemed Dear Moon by Maezawa, SpaceX is targeting an extremely ambitious launch deadline sometime in 2023, although CEO Elon Musk frankly noted that hitting that 2023 window would require all aspects of BFR booster and spaceship development to proceed flawlessly over the next several years.

Compared to the 10+ years and $30+ billion of development SLS and Orion will have taken before their first full launch, SpaceX is targeting the first orbital BFR test flights as early as 2020 or 2021, self-admittedly optimistic deadlines that will likely slip. Still, betting against SpaceX completing its first BFR launch sometime in the early to mid-2020s for something approximating Musk’s $2-10 billion development cost seems a risky move in the context of SpaceX’s undeniable track record of proving the old-guard wrong.

: NASA’s EM-2 circumlunar voyage. (NASA)

: SpaceX’s own circumlunar trajectory, nearly identical. (SpaceX)

: SLS Block 1. (NASA)

: BFR’s spaceship and booster (now Starship and Super Heavy) separate in a mid-2018 render of the vehicle. (SpaceX)

It must be noted that the apparent alignment of both SpaceX and NASA’s first crewed circumlunar missions with new rockets and spacecraft is a fluke of chance, and the fact that it may or may not take the shape of a second race to the Moon – pitting two dramatically different ideologies and organizational approaches against each other – is purely coincidental.

However, despite the undeniable fact that NASA and SpaceX are deeply and cooperatively involved through Crew and Cargo Dragon and despite Musk’s genuine affirmations of support and admiration for the space agency, it can be almost guaranteed that the world will look on in the 2020s with the same underlying emotions and motivations that were globally present during the Apollo Program. Rather than a battle of economic and nationalistic ideologies, the New Space Race of the 2020s will pit two (publicly) amicable private and public entities against each other at the same time as they work hand-in-hand to deliver crew and cargo to the International Space Station.

: An overview of BFR’s booster and spaceship, now known as Super Heavy and Starship. (SpaceX)

: SpaceX has already completed the first of many carbon-composite sections of its prototype spaceship. (SpaceX)

: SLS’ movable launch pad is very slowly being prepared for a 2020/2021 debut. (Tom Cross)

: SLS undoubtedly has several steps up on BFR in terms of volume of hardware in work, although target launch dates are quite similar for both rockets. (NASA)

Critically, this new “race” will be fairly illusory. Thanks to the fact that the new goal of human spaceflight appears to be the sustainable exploration of the solar system, there will inherently be no Apollo-style finish line for any one company or country or agency to cross. Rather than the Apollo Program’s shortsighted economic motivations and its consequentially abrupt demise, the end-result of this new age of competition will be the establishment of humanity as a (deep) spacefaring species, be it a temporary burst of effort or a permanent human condition.

Buckle up.

For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

Related Topics:BFR NASA SpaceX Top Story

Eric Ralph

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.

Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 real-world drive and review

Published

11 hours ago

November 13, 2025

Joey Klender

tesla interior operating on full self driving

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla started rolling out its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 suite last night to owners, and there are several improvements to note within the new update that are at least the start of fixes to highly-mentioned issues.

On an hour-long drive, we tested v14.1.7 and tested its new capabilities, which are mostly overall performance and smoothness fixes rather than integrations of new features that are unknown to routine FSD users. However, there are a handful of shortcomings that are still present within the suite, which are not something that will be fixed within the span of a single update.

For what it is, Full Self-Driving does an excellent job of navigating — once you get it on its correct path. Our issues tend to be confined to navigation, routing, and the decision-making process that has to do with the way the car wants to get you to your destination. There were five things that happened on our first drive with v14.1.7 that are worth mentioning. The full drive will be available at the bottom of this article.

Navigation and Routing Still Seems to Be a Major Challenge

In past content, we’ve discussed the issues with routing and navigation, and how a Tesla chooses its path. Most noticeably, these issues occur in the same areas; for me, it’s my local Supercharger. My 2026 Model Y with AI4 continues to pick less-than-optimal routes out of the Supercharger, and in this instance, it actually chose to turn down a road, pull over, and give me the wheel, essentially asking, “Hey, can you get me on the right track here?”

This is still my biggest bone to pick with FSD, even more so than some of the bonehead moves it’s made in tougher scenarios (mostly parking lots with very limited visibility due to shrubs being planted in the worst possible locations). It’s rare that it happens, but this particular Supercharger has been a true thorn in the side of my Tesla.

This is not an issue that is confined to v14.1.7, or even v14 in general. Unfortunately, it is an issue that has persisted throughout my ownership experience, as well as during Demo Drives.

Still dealing with this Navigation/Routing issue. FSD still hasn’t figured out how to exit this Supercharger.
FSD chose to pull over and let me work it out of its predicament: pic.twitter.com/ZOIsA7eW2C
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Stuttering and Hesitation at Intersections was Non-Existent

There was some confusion regarding my language in a recent article where I stated Tesla is confronting the issues that have been reported regarding the “stabbing” with braking.

“Tesla began the v14.1.4 launch last night, which included minor improvements and addressed brake-stabbing issues many owners have reported. In my personal experience, the stabbing has been awful on v14.1.3, and is a major concern.

However, many things have improved, and only a couple of minor issues have been recurring. Many of the issues v13 addressed are no longer an issue, so Tesla has made significant progress.”

It has undoubtedly improved, but it is not resolved.

With that being said, I did not feel a single example of hesitation, stabbing, or stuttering at a single intersection or instance when it has been present in the past. CEO Elon Musk said it would be fixed with v14.2, so it seems like Tesla is well on its way to resolving it.

Proper Handling of Crosswalks

It’s crazy how many people still do not stop for pedestrians at clearly-marked crosswalks. I had two instances of it happen during the drive, with FSD stopping for those pedestrians both times.

Human drivers did not stop either time:

Two instances of FSD stopping for pedestrians at crosswalks while human drivers proceed: pic.twitter.com/b4W7GXsXwH
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Handled Merging onto a Highway with an Inconsiderate Driver Well

Routinely, drivers will get over into the left lane, if they are able, to allow merging traffic to safely enter the freeway. It does not always happen this way, and it’s not required by law.

Not exclusive to v14.1.7, as many past iterations would have done this as well, but it was nice to watch the vehicle slow down to let that traffic pass. It then entered the freeway safely, and the entire maneuver was well done.

Not exclusive to v14.1.7, but just a great job of allowing highway traffic to pass before merging: pic.twitter.com/Hl9Hr0N5Jc
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Took an Appropriate Move with Oncoming Foot Traffic and Debris in a Tight Alleyway

This was probably the most on-edge I was during the drive because: 1) FSD chose to take an unnecessary alleyway, and 2) there was a box and oncoming pedestrians.

The car was aware of everything that was going on. In order to avoid the box, it would have had to turn toward the pedestrians, and in order to avoid the pedestrians, it would have had to turn into the box.

It chose to wait patiently, and after the pedestrians were past the car, FSD chose to proceed.

A patient FSD debates pedestrians and debris.
It chooses to not turn toward the humans or the box, instead waiting for a clear path to proceed. EXCELLENT and my favorite part of the drive pic.twitter.com/JNVxuxkhmn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Closing Thoughts

Overall, we’re very impressed with v14.1.7, and we think this is Tesla’s best iteration of the FSD suite yet, as it should be since it’s the newest version available. Tesla’s attention to detail regarding the brake stabbing is really well done, and it seems evident that a complete fix is on its way.

Other than the navigation issue at the very beginning, which was not an intervention, at least in my opinion, this was a really successful drive.

Elon Musk

Elon Musk debunks report claiming xAI raised $15 billion in funding round

xAI also responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, stating, “Legacy Media Lies.”

Published

12 hours ago

November 13, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Credit: xAI

Elon Musk has debunked a report claiming his AI startup xAI had raised $15 billion from a funding round. Reports of the alleged funding round were initially reported by CNBC, which cited sources reportedly familiar with the matter.

CNBC’s report

The CNBC story cited unnamed sources that claimed that the new capital injection would help fund GPUs that xAI needs to train its large language model, Grok. The news outlet noted that following the funding round, xAI was valued at $200 billion.

Artificial intelligence startups have been raising funds from investors as of late. OpenAI raised $6.6 billion in October, valuing the startup at a staggering $500 billion. Reuters also reported last month that OpenAI was preparing for an IPO with a valuation of $1 trillion. Elon Musk’s xAI is looking to catch up and disrupt OpenAI, as well as its large language model, ChatGPT, which has become ubiquitous.

False— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 13, 2025

Elon Musk and xAI’s responses

In his response on X, Elon Musk simply stated that the CNBC story was “false.” He did not, however, explain if the whole premise of the publication’s article was fallacious, or if only parts of it were inaccurate.

Amusingly enough, xAI also issued a response when asked about the matter by Reuters, which also reported on the story. The artificial intelligence startup responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, which read, “Legacy Media Lies.”

xAI, founded in July 2023 as an alternative to OpenAI and Anthropic, has aggressively built out infrastructure to support its flagship products, including Grok and its recently launched Grokipedia platform. The company is developing its Colossus supercomputer in Memphis, which is heralded as one of the world’s largest supercomputer clusters.

News

Tesla reportedly testing Apple CarPlay integration: report

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally.

Published

16 hours ago

November 13, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is reportedly testing Apple’s CarPlay software for its vehicles, marking a major shift after years of resisting the tech giant’s ecosystem.

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally. The move could help Tesla gain more market share, as surveys have shown many buyers consider CarPlay as an essential feature when choosing a car.

Not the usual CarPlay experience

Bloomberg claimed that Tesla’s tests involve a rather unique way to integrate CarPlay. Instead of replacing the vehicle’s entire infotainment display, Tesla’s integration will reportedly feature a CarPlay window on the infotainment system. This limited approach will ensure that Tesla’s own software, such as Full Self-Driving’s visuals, remains dominant.

The feature is expected to support wireless connectivity as well, bringing Tesla in line with other luxury automakers that already offer CarPlay. While plans remain fluid and may change before public release, the publication’s sources claimed that the rollout could happen within months.

A change of heart

Tesla has been reluctant to grant Apple access to its in-car systems, partly due to Elon Musk’s past criticism of the tech giant’s App Store policies and its poaching of Tesla engineers during the failed Apple Car project. Tesla’s in-house software is also deemed by numerous owners as a superior option to CarPlay, thanks to its sleek design and rich feature set.

With Apple’s retreat from building cars and Elon Musk’s relationship with Apple for X and Grok, however, the CEO’s stance on the tech giant seems to be improving. Overall, Tesla’s potential CarPlay integration would likely be appreciated by owners, as a McKinsey & Co. survey last year found that roughly one-third of buyers considered the lack of such systems a deal-breaker.