News
SpaceX’s second astronaut launch a step closer after NASA announcement
SpaceX’s second astronaut launch is a a step closer to flight after NASA and JAXA announced the third and fourth astronauts assigned to ride Crew Dragon to the International Space Station (ISS) on its first operational mission.
On the cusp of March 30th and 31st, the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) made the first Crew Dragon-related announcement of the day, revealing the assignment of astronaut Soichi Noguchi to SpaceX’s Crew-1 launch. Hinging entirely on the success of SpaceX’s imminent Demo-2 astronaut launch debut, a critical demonstration mission scheduled to launch no earlier than mid-to-late May 2020, Crew Dragon’s Crew-1 mission will be the spacecraft’s first operational mission ferrying humans to and from the space station. NASA followed up JAXA’s announced hours later, revealing that astronaut Shannon Walker would be the fourth and final crew member aboard Crew Dragon’s Crew-1 launch.
Including Boeing’s Starliner and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon crewed demonstration missions, known as the Crewed Flight Test and Demonstration Mission 2 (Demo-2 or DM-2), respectively, NASA has purchased six astronaut launches from both providers. In theory, one Starliner and Crew Dragon launch per year – spaced out six or so months apart – should be enough to meet NASA’s space station transportation needs, meaning that the space agency’s 12 contracts should last until 2025 or 2026. Boeing’s Starliner appears to be delayed indefinitely after multiple near-catastrophic failures on its first Orbital Flight Test (OFT) but if SpaceX’s Demo-2 mission goes as planned, Crew Dragon could be set to enter operational duty as early as Q4 2020.
SpaceX’s Crew-1 mission manifest now includes NASA astronauts Mike Hopkins, Victor Glover, and Shannon Walker, as well as JAXA astronaut Soichi Noguchi and will likely carry an additional 100-200 kg (200-400 lb) of cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). While all eyes are reasonably on Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 mission, right now, the spacecraft’s Crew-1 through -5 missions are where SpaceX has the opportunity to gain extensive experience launching humans on an operational, semi-routine basis.
Making up at least half of the backbone of NASA’s new domestic astronaut launch capabilities, Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 will hopefully prove themselves to be as reliable and dependable as they and their predecessors have been over the years. Cargo Dragon, SpaceX’s first orbital-class spacecraft and the first private vehicle to visit the ISS, has successfully resupplied the space station and safely returned to Earth each of the 20 times the spacecraft reached orbit. Unsurprisingly, SpaceX ran into intermittent technical issues over those numerous flights, but all of those anomalies were solved on the fly and never prevented mission success or spacecraft recovery.
Falcon 9’s first in-flight failure destroyed the CRS-7 Cargo Dragon spacecraft in June 2015 and cut the mission short before it could reach orbit, but the failure was entirely unrelated to Dragon. Falcon 9’s second catastrophic failure occurred less than 15 months later, also a fault of a small but explosive rocket design flaw. From January 2017 to March 2020, however, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets have completed 58 consecutively successful launches. With that streak of success, by certain measures, Falcon has become the most reliable operational rocket family in the world, tied with ULA’s famously reliable Atlas V and slightly better than Arianespace’s Ariane 5.
In short, while Cargo Dragon can’t hold a candle to the sheer scale of Russia’s Soyuz and Progress spacecraft flight histories, Falcon 9 is one of the two most reliable launch vehicles in operation and Crew Dragon will stand on the back of one of the most reliable spacecraft ever built in recent history. With (perhaps more than a little) luck, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft – launched atop Atlas V, the other most reliable operational rocket – will hopefully be able to develop its own record of reliability in the next several years, but it will never be able to compete with the Cargo Dragon heritage Crew Dragon directly benefits from.
Boeing’s next Starliner mission is up in the air after the spacecraft’s almost disastrous orbital launch debut. Most likely, NASA will require a second uncrewed flight test, this time including the space station rendezvous, docking, and departure attempt Boeing had to cancel after Starliner’s major software failure. A second OFT would likely be ready for flight no earlier than Q3 or Q4 2020, depending on NASA’s investigation findings and requirements. If NASA remains confident and things go perfectly during the likely OFT2 mission, Starliner’s Crew Flight Test (CFT) could maybe launch by the end of 2020.
Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 astronaut launch debut is aiming for what NASA says is a mid-to-late May launch, although the mission is more likely to fly in the late-May to mid-June time frame. If Demo-2 launches on schedule (H1 2020) and is as flawless as Crew Dragon’s uncrewed Demo-1 launch debut, SpaceX could be ready to launch its second astronaut mission (Crew-1) as early as Q4 2020, possibly around the start of the quarter. With so much contingent on near-term reviews and tests, schedules beyond Demo-2 are unsurprisingly fluid.
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
