News
SpaceX a bastion of independent US, European spaceflight amid Russian threats
Russia has invaded Ukraine without provocation, triggering a series of diplomatic responses – sanctions in particular – that recently culminated in the aggressor deciding to cut ties with Europe on a number of cooperative spaceflight projects.
Dmitry Rogozin, director of Russia’s national ‘Roscosmos’ space agency, went as far as implying that the country might respond to the West’s aerospace sanctions by ending its support of the International Space Station (ISS), a move that could cause the football-field-sized structure to gradually deorbit and reenter Earth’s atmosphere. Were it not for the existence of two extraordinarily successful NASA programs and SpaceX in particular, Russia’s response – which, today, reads like a child’s tantrum – could easily have been a grave threat with far-reaching consequences.
In response to sanctions after its unprovoked invasion, Russia announced that it was withdrawing support from Europe’s French Guinea Soyuz launch operations, effectively killing Arianespace’s Soyuz offering and potentially delaying several upcoming European launches indefinitely.
As a quick side note, it’s worth noting that ULA’s lack of readily available rockets and the fact that Arianespace is likely at least a year or more away from regular Ariane 6 launches means that SpaceX may be the only Western launch provider in the world capable of filling in the gap that Arianespace’s Soyuz loss will leave. Aside from pursuing Chinese launch services, which is likely a diplomatic non-starter, the only alternative to rebooking former European Soyuz payloads on SpaceX rockets is to accept one or even several years of expensive delays.
On the other half of the coin is the International Space Station. NASA signed its first major contract with SpaceX in 2008, awarding the company $1.6 billion (and up to $3.5 billion) to launch a dozen Cargo Dragon supply missions to the ISS. Aside from effectively pulling SpaceX back from the brink of dissolution, those funds also covered a large portion of the development of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft and simultaneously funded Orbital Science’s (later Orbital ATK and now Northrop Grumman) Cygnus cargo spacecraft and Antares rocket.
Despite suffering two failures in 2014 and 2015, NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program has been an extraordinary success. Together, Cygnus (17) and Dragon (24) have completed 41 deliveries in the last 12 years, carrying more than 110 tons (~240,000 lb) of cargo to the ISS.
Out of sheer coincidence, on February 19th, mere days before Russia’s act of war, Northrop Grumman launched the first Cygnus spacecraft designed to help ‘re-boost’ (raise the orbit of) the International Space Station. Since NASA’s premature 2011 retirement of the Space Shuttle, that task has been exclusively conducted by a combination of Russian spacecraft and the station’s Russian Zvezda module. Without regular Russian re-boost support, the station would deorbit and be destroyed. In other words, if push came to shove, the ISS could very literally fail without direct Russian involvement. Rogozin’s threat, then, was that Russia might cease to support ISS re-boosting if sanctions went too far.
However, even while ignoring the fact that NASA itself actually paid for and owns the ISS Zvezda propulsion module and in light of the first Cygnus spacecraft upgraded with a re-boost capability berthing with the station the very same week of the invasion, Russia’s threat rang decidedly hollow. Further, if Cygnus weren’t available, it’s still difficult to imagine that SpaceX wouldn’t be able to quickly develop its own Dragon re-boost capability if asked to do so.
While re-boosting is crucial, the situation has also emphasized just how little leverage Russia now has over even more important aspects of the International Space Station. Were it not for the existence of SpaceX and NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), the situation could be even direr for Europe and the US. Despite some pressure from lawmakers to only award the CCP contract to Boeing, NASA ultimately selected Boeing and SpaceX to develop independent crew capsules capable of carrying US astronauts to and from ISS in 2014. Following a near-flawless uncrewed Crew Dragon test flight in 2019 and an equally successful crewed demo mission in 2020, SpaceX completed its first operational Crew Dragon launch in November 2020.
Since then, SpaceX has launched another two operational ‘crew rotation’ missions, meaning that the company has now singlehandedly supported all US astronaut launch and recovery operations for 16 months. Due in part to extensive mismanagement, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft was nearly destroyed twice during its first catastrophic uncrewed test flight in December 2019. The spacecraft is still months away from a second attempt at that test flight, likely at least 9-12 months away from a hypothetical crewed test flight, and potentially 18+ months away from even less certain operational NASA astronaut launches. Further, though ULA CEO Tory Bruno claims that the company doesn’t need any support from Russia, all Atlas Vs – the rocket responsible for launching Starliner – depend on Russian-built RD-180 engines.
Further adding to the mire, even Cygnus is not immune. The first stage of the Antares rocket that mainly launches it is both built in Ukraine and dependent upon Russian Energomash RD-181 engines. Northrop Grumman only has the hardware on hand for the next two Cygnus-Antares launches, at which point the company will have to either abandon its NASA contract or find an alternative launch provider. Once again, SpaceX is the only US provider obviously capable of filling that gap on such short notice and without incurring major delays of half a year or more.
In fewer words, without SpaceX, NASA would still be exclusively dependent upon Russian Soyuz rockets and spacecraft to get its astronauts to and from the space station it spent tens of billions of dollars to help build. Even in a best-case SpaceX-free scenario, NASA might instead be dependent upon a rocket with Russian engines to launch its own astronauts. Needless to say, the presence of US astronauts on Russian launches and ULA’s use of Russian engines were already extremely sensitive issues after Russia ‘merely’ invaded Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014.
It’s hard not to imagine that US and European responses to Russia’s aggression would have been weakened if NASA and ESA astronauts were still entirely dependent upon Russia to access the International Space Station. Further, in the same scenario, given its withdrawal from French Guinea, it’s also not implausible to imagine that Russia might have severely hampered or even fully withdrawn its support of Western access to the ISS.
Put simply, Crew Dragon – now a bastion of independent European and US human spaceflight in an age of extraordinary Russian recklessness – has arguably never been more important and SpaceX’s success never more of a triumph than they are today.
News
Tesla Model Y may gain an extra 90 miles of range with Panasonic’s next-gen battery
The Japanese company is pursuing an anode-free design.
Panasonic is developing a new high-capacity EV battery that could potentially extend the range of a Tesla Model Y by 90 miles.
The Japanese company, one of Tesla’s key battery suppliers, is pursuing an anode-free design that it says could deliver a “world-leading” level of capacity by the end of 2027.
Panasonic’s anode-free design
The technology Panasonic is pursuing would eliminate the anode during the manufacturing process, as noted in a Reuters report. By freeing up space for more active cathode materials such as nickel, cobalt, and aluminum, the Japanese company expects a 25% increase in capacity without expanding battery size.
That could allow Tesla’s Model Y to gain an estimated 145 kilometers (90 miles) of additional range if equipped with a battery that matches its current pack’s size. At the same time, Panasonic could use smaller, lighter batteries to achieve the Model Y’s current range.
Panasonic also aims to reduce reliance on nickel, which remains one of the more costly raw materials. A senior executive previewed the initiative to reporters ahead of a scheduled presentation by Panasonic Energy’s technology chief, Shoichiro Watanabe.
Tesla implications
The breakthrough, if achieved, could strengthen Panasonic’s position as Tesla’s longest-standing battery partner at a time when the automaker is preparing to enter an era of extreme scale driven by high-volume products like the Cybercab and Optimus.
Elon Musk has stated that products like Optimus would be manufactured at very high scale, so it would likely be an all-hands-on-deck situation for the company’s suppliers.
Panasonic did not share details on production costs or how quickly the new batteries might scale for commercial applications. That being said, the Japanese supplier has long been a partner of Tesla, so it makes sense for the company to also push for the next generation of battery innovation while the EV maker pursues even more lofty ambitions.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is being called “the biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen” by Yale School of Management Senior Associate Dean Jeff Sonnenfeld, who made the comments in a recent interview with CNBC.
Sonnenfeld’s comments echo those of many of the company’s skeptics, who argue that its price-to-earnings ratio is far too high when compared to other companies also in the tech industry. Tesla is often compared to companies like Apple, Nvidia, and Microsoft when these types of discussions come up.
Fundamentally, yes, Tesla does trade at a P/E level that is significantly above that of any comparable company.
However, it is worth mentioning that Tesla is not traded like a typical company, either.
Here’s what Sonnenfeld said regarding Tesla:
“This is the biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen. Even at its peak, Amazon was nowhere near this level. The PE on this, well above 200, is just crazy. When you’ve got stocks like Nvidia, the price-earnings ratio is around 25 or 30, and Apple is maybe 35 or 36, Microsoft around the same. I mean, this is way out of line to be at a 220 PE. It’s crazy, and they’ve, I think, put a little too much emphasis on the magic wand of Musk.”
Many analysts have admitted in the past that they believe Tesla is an untraditional stock in the sense that many analysts trade it based on narrative and not fundamentals. Ryan Brinkman of J.P. Morgan once said:
“Tesla shares continue to strike us as having become completely divorced from the fundamentals.”
Dan Nathan, another notorious skeptic of Tesla shares, recently turned bullish on the stock because of “technicals and sentiment.” He said just last week:
“I think from a trading perspective, it looks very interesting.”
Nathan said Tesla shares show signs of strength moving forward, including holding its 200-day moving average and holding against current resistance levels.
Sonnenfeld’s synopsis of Tesla shares points out that there might be “a little too much emphasis on the magic wand of Musk.”
Elon Musk just bought $1 billion in Tesla stock, his biggest purchase ever
This could refer to different things: perhaps his recent $1 billion stock buy, which sent the stock skyrocketing, or the fact that many Tesla investors are fans and owners who do not buy and sell on numbers, but rather on news that Musk might report himself.
Tesla is trading around $423.76 at the time of publication, as of 3:25 p.m. on the East Coast.
News
Tesla makes big change to Full Self-Driving doghouse that drivers will like
Now, it is changing the timeframe of which strikes will be removed, cutting it in half. The strikes will be removed every 3.5 days, as long as no strikes are received during the time period.
Tesla is making a big change to its Full Self-Driving doghouse that drivers will like.
The doghouse is a hypothetical term used to describe the penalty period that Tesla applies to drivers who receive too many infractions related to distracted driving.
Previously, Tesla implemented a seven-day ban on the use of Full Self-Driving for those who received five strikes in a vehicle equipped with a cabin camera and three strikes for those without a cabin camera.
It also forgave one strike per week of Full Self-Driving use, provided the driver did not receive any additional strikes during the seven-day period.
Now, it is changing the timeframe of which strikes will be removed, cutting it in half. The strikes will be removed every 3.5 days, as long as no strikes are received during the time period.
The change was found by Not a Tesla App, which noticed the adjustment in the Owner’s Manual for the 2025.32 Software Update.
The system undoubtedly helps improve safety as it helps keep drivers honest. However, there are definitely workarounds, which people are using and promoting for monetary gain, and you can find them on basically any online marketplace, including TikTok shop and Amazon:
🚨 Seeing more and more devices like this land on various online marketplaces including TikTok shop and Amazon
These devices are NOT to be used when operating Tesla Full Self-Driving and I’d love to see Tesla take action here.
These “creators” looking to make a quick buck are… pic.twitter.com/VnY25k2mPL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 17, 2025
People are marketing the product as an FSD cheat device, which the cabin-facing camera will not be able to detect, allowing you to watch something on a phone or look through the windshield at the road.
The safeguards implemented by Tesla are designed to protect drivers from distractions and also protect the company itself from liability. People are still using Full Self-Driving as if it were a fully autonomous product, and it is not.
Tesla even says that the driver must pay attention and be ready to take over in any scenario:
“Yes. Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.
Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to “keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and to always “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.” Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.
You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”
It is good that Tesla is rewarding those who learn from their mistakes with this shorter timeframe to lose the strikes. It won’t be needed forever, though, as eventually, the company will solve autonomy. The question is: when?
Tesla Model Y may gain an extra 90 miles of range with Panasonic’s next-gen battery
Tesla called ‘biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen’ by Yale associate dean
Tesla makes big change to Full Self-Driving doghouse that drivers will like
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla’s next-gen Optimus prototype with Grok revealed
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new Supercharger program that business owners will love
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Board takes firm stance on Elon Musk’s political involvement in pay package proxy
-
News2 weeks agoTesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist
-
News2 weeks agoTesla explains why Robotaxis now have safety monitors in the driver’s seat
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is already giving Robotaxi privileges hours after opening public app
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk says Tesla will take Safety Drivers out of Robotaxi: here’s when
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk is setting high expectations for Tesla AI5 and AI6 chips