News
SpaceX, NASA batten down the hatches as another storm approaches Florida
SpaceX, NASA, and the rest of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) are doing what they can to prepare for Tropical Storm Nicole’s imminent arrival.
The somewhat unexpected storm grew quickly in recent days and has become a system that could at least partially threaten the Space Coast and its tenants. After the likelihood of favorable weather conditions dropped to just 20% on November 7th, SpaceX announced later the same day that it would delay its next Falcon 9 launch from November 8th to no earlier than (NET) November 12th. Increasingly tight scheduling of one of SpaceX’s two Florida pads will likely trigger delays for at least two or three more November launches, magnifying the storm’s immediate impact.
In comparison, the situation facing NASA could become more serious. On November 4th, for the fourth time since April 2022, NASA rolled its first Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to KSC’s LC-39B pad for a third launch attempt. Due to a combination of the storm’s quick growth and the nature of the SLS rocket, the design of which was dictated more by political expediency than rational engineering, the agency was reluctant to roll the rocket back to shelter. By the time it was clear that Nicole would impact Cape Canaveral, it was too late for NASA to complete the multi-day rollback process.
In late September, Hurricane Ian created a similar situation. The threat of the tail-end of the storm bringing winds higher than the SLS rocket is rated to survive forced NASA to abandon a third launch attempt and instead roll SLS back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), which is rated to survive even a Category 5 hurricane. According to NASA, SLS is designed to withstand wind gusts as high as 137 km/h (85 mph). Even then, some senior officials were brazenly reluctant to stand down. Every round trip to and from the VAB guarantees weeks of delays before the next possible launch attempt. Additionally, while NASA has refused to offer more context, each crawler ride seemingly takes a toll on the SLS rocket, meaning that the vehicle can only handle a limited number of rollbacks before unspecified issues begin to arise.
As a result, even though high winds could apparently damage the first SLS rocket and orbit-capable Orion spacecraft, which represent 10-15 years of work and would cost a minimum of $4.1 billion to replace, NASA was nearly willing to play chicken with a hurricane. Ultimately, someone in the agency saw reason and took the threat seriously enough to return the rocket to the safety of the VAB. But just six weeks later, with no evidence that NASA seriously considered a rollback before it was too late, SLS is stuck at Pad 39B while an increasingly threatening tropical storm – verging on a Category 1 hurricane – approaches the Space Coast.
Because the rollback process (which takes about a day) requires days of preparation, NASA would have had to decide to return SLS to the VAB days in advance. Instead, even though NASA was already aware that a storm system was developing, the agency decided to roll the rocket out of the VAB to LC-39B late on November 3rd. Had NASA merely delayed rollout by a few days to allow forecasts of the storm system to become more confident, it’s unlikely that it would have moved forward with its rollout plans as the storm’s predicted impact worsened.
When Hurricane Ian threatened KSC, NASA decided to roll SLS back to the VAB after the odds of sustained hurricane-force winds grew to 6%. That makes NASA’s decision to roll SLS to the pad when it had a forecast showing a 4% chance of similar winds even stranger.
SLS will be forced to weather the storm while sitting unprotected at the launch pad. As of November 7th, NOAA models predicted a 7% chance of hurricane-force winds at Kennedy Space Center. The odds increased to 15% 12 hours later – briefly equivalent to Russian roulette. The latest forecast has dropped to a 10% chance of sustained wind speeds of 120 km/h (75 mph) or higher. It’s unclear what the SLS rocket’s tolerance for sustained winds is, but it’s likely lower than its tolerance for gusts of up to 85 mph.
With any luck, Nicole will fall on the right side of NASA’s gamble. In the meantime, to “provide sufficient logistical time to get back into launch status following the storm,” NASA has delayed its third SLS launch attempt from November 14th to November 16th. The bulk of Nicole’s impact will begin to be felt at KSC as early as November 9th and should last for several days.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
