News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon explosion response praised by NASA in new briefing
During a recent NASA council meeting, SpaceX’s response to a Crew Dragon capsule’s April 20th explosion was repeatedly praised by the agency’s senior Commercial Crew Program (CCP) manager, her optimism clearly rekindled after several undeniably challenging months.
On October 29th and 30th, NASA held its second 2019 Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, comprised of a number of (more or less) independent advisors who convene to receive NASA updates and provide a sort of third-party opinion on the agency’s programs. Alongside NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, Commercial Crew continues to be a major priority for NASA and is equally prominent in NAC meetings, where program officials present updates.
On October 30th, CCP manager Kathy Lueders presented one such update on the progress being made by Commercial Crew providers Boeing and SpaceX, both of which are just weeks away from multiple crucial tests. Boeing is scheduled to perform a pad abort test of its Starliner spacecraft as early as November 4th, while SpaceX is targeting a static fire of a Crew Dragon capsule on November 6th. If that test fire is successful, the same capsule could be ready to support SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test in early-December, and Boeing’s Starliner could attempt its orbital launch debut (OFT) no earlier than (NET) December 17th.
For both SpaceX and Boeing, the results of their respective In-Flight Abort and Orbital Flight Test will determine just how soon NASA will certify each company to attempt their first commercial launches with astronauts aboard. If Boeing’s Pad Abort goes perfectly and Starliner’s NET December 17th OFT is also a total success, the company could be ready for its Crewed Flight Test (CFT) anywhere from 3-6+ months after (March-June 2020).
If SpaceX’s IFA test goes perfectly next month, Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 astronaut launch could occur as early as February or March 2020. In April 2019, SpaceX suffered a major setback when flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule C201 violently exploded milliseconds before a planned abort thruster static fire test, reducing the historic spacecraft to a field of debris. Before that failure, C201 had been assigned to perform the in-flight abort test, while capsule C205 was in the late stages of assembly for Demo-2.
Had that explosion never happened and the C201 IFA gone perfectly, Demo-2 could have potentially been ready for launch as early as August or September 2019. Instead, C201’s demise forced SpaceX to change capsule assignments, reassigning C205 to support Crew Dragon’s IFA, while C206 was moved to Demo-2. Nevertheless, as both SpaceX and NASA officials have noted, C201’s on-pad explosion has been viewed as a gift, for the most part, as the capsule failed in a largely controlled and highly-instrumented environment.
In fact, NASA manager Kathy Lueders complimented NASA’s involvement in the anomaly resolution process and repeatedly praised SpaceX’s response to Dragon’s explosion. Although the explosion was an undesirable result, SpaceX’s relentless prioritization flight hardware testing prevented a failure from occurring in flight. Performed alongside NASA, SpaceX’s subsequent investigations and experimentation have essentially brought to light a new design constraint, the knowledge of which many space agencies and companies will likely benefit from.
Most notably, however, Lueders detailed how impressed she was at the incredible speed with which SpaceX was able to respond to Crew Dragon’s catastrophic static fire anomaly.
“So the nice thing is that the SpaceX folks had a bunch of vehicles in flow. So even though we lost Demo-1 [capsule C201], … [SpaceX] was able to pull up what was going to be our Demo-2 vehicle, outfit it, make [necessary] changes [and upgrades] to the vehicle, and get it ready for [flight] with a six-month slip — a pretty phenomenal turnaround.“
Kathy Lueders – NASA – 10/30/19
Crew Dragon C201 exploded on April 20th, 2019. Five months and seven days later, a new Crew Dragon capsule and trunk – having undergone significant modifications as a result of the C201 explosion investigation – were delivered to SpaceX’s Florida facilities for their new role, Dragon’s In-Flight Abort test. Meanwhile, despite the upset and general instability, Crew Dragon capsule C206 – previously assigned to the flight after Demo-2 – is in the late stages of assembly and integration and is expected to ship to Florida for preflight preparations in early-December.
Altogether, those turnaround times are almost unheard of for such complex systems. For example, Boeing’s Starliner service module – generally less complex than the crew capsule – suffered a serious anomaly during a June 2018 static fire test. As a result, Boeing had to fully replace the service module with new hardware and repeat the same test before it could proceed to Starliner’s Pad Abort, at the time expected a few weeks later (Q2 2018).
Like SpaceX, Boeing was forced to cannibalize future launch hardware to re-attempt its static fire test, which was ultimately completed some 11 months after the anomaly on May 24th, 2019. The Pad Abort previously expected in mid-2018 is now expected no earlier than November 4th, 2019, a delay of 12-16 months. In simpler terms, the six or so months that Crew Dragon C201’s explosion has delayed SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort test is an undeniably “phenomenal turnaround” relative to both NASA’s expectations and SpaceX’s peers.
A happy partnership
The day prior, famed ex-NASA engineer and Space Shuttle program manager Wayne Hale – now serving as NAC chair – brought up SpaceX in an entirely different context, deeming the company as a whole a “sterling example” of NASA’s ability to incubate and incentivize commercial spaceflight.
Indeed, SpaceX has radically reshaped almost every aspect of the global spaceflight industry in the ten years since NASA awarded the company its first major contract, proving that orbital-class commercial rockets can be built, landed, and reused – all for far less money than NASA or competitors believed was possible.
All things considered, NASA appears to be more content than ever with the results its fruitful SpaceX partnerships are producing, and a number of senior NASA officials seem to be increasingly willing to unbridle their enthusiasm as a result.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.
The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.
The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.
This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.
Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure
Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”
In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.
Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims
- In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
- It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain
It’s not a ghost town lol. The @Tesla Diner still had over 30,000 burger orders and 83,000 fries orders in Q4. The diner generated over $1M in revenue in Q4, a $4M annual run rate, which is more than the average McDonald’s…. pic.twitter.com/XvAGLUqxej
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 4, 2026
Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports
While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:
- A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude
TESLA DINER 🍔
Frantic!!!
Crazy busy. pic.twitter.com/wMbmr8SFFn
— Rich & Sharon (@HullTeslaModel3) January 4, 2026
- Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”
When we visited it last week it was packed. We had to wait to enter, get a table and go to the restroom. We were lucky to find a spot to charge.
— Rani G (@ranig) January 4, 2026
Bottom Line
The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”
It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.
News
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.
These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.
Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.
The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.
How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation
Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.
The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.
NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase
First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.
Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.
Preempting State Regulations
A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.
A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.
This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.
Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day
Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.
Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.
Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.
Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.
In Summary
This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
News
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance.
More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system.
Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD
Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”
During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies.
“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said.
Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration
Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.
“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.
He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.
“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”
He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.
Tesla Diner defies the ‘Doom’ narrative: Profitable, Popular, and Here to Stay
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
