News
Tesla’s proven anti-pandemic safety plan has fallen on deaf ears amid an anti-Elon Musk narrative
One of the most remarkable things that one can witness is the birth and spread of a narrative. Narratives are powerful, as they are capable of affecting and perhaps even changing the perception of people on a particular person or topic. Such a narrative is forming in the Tesla-sphere today: one that completely ignores a company’s proven efforts to battle the coronavirus, and one that brands the electric car maker’s CEO as a de facto villain that cares not for his employees.
Amidst the ongoing issues surrounding the reopening of the Fremont factory, Tesla publicly shared a Return to Work Playbook that it will be using to protect and prevent its workers from contracting the coronavirus. The strategies outlined in the playbook are modeled after the company’s efforts in Gigafactory Shanghai, which successfully battled the virus when it was ravaging China. Tesla’s Shanghai plant was barely affected by the pandemic, and it is back in full operations today.
Alameda County officials have not given Tesla the green light to resume operations in the Fremont plant, a factor that has resulted in heated online discussions between Elon Musk, TSLA critics and supporters, and local government officials. County officials argue that Tesla is yet to meet certain guidelines that would allow its formal approval to reopen the Fremont factory, but no details about these criteria have been released thus far. This has resulted in a rather sticky situation. The county says Tesla is not fulfilling safety guidelines, but it would not specify which.
Strangely enough, Alameda County has also not discussed which parts of Tesla’s Return to Work Playbook are inadequate. A look at the playbook shows several intensive safety protocols that the company will be adopting to prevent the spread of the virus. But even the existence of the playbook itself, and more importantly, its contents, do not seem to be acknowledged by representatives of Alameda County when they speak against the electric car maker’s intentions to reopen the Fremont plant.
CEO Elon Musk has ordered Tesla’s Fremont factory to reopen despite opposition from Alameda County officials. Musk even noted that if anyone were to be arrested due to the factory’s reopening, it should only be him. Such a move has triggered a wave of negative coverage on the CEO, with some articles claiming that Musk is “asking” to be arrested, or “daring” law enforcement to apprehend him. A narrative has also formed suggesting that Tesla and Musk are “forcing” Fremont’s employees to build cars without any regard for public safety. A report from The Washington Post even quoted a Fremont factory worker who reportedly stated that “we are extremely frustrated, angry, scared, that Elon is putting his cars before his workers.”
Such a narrative is compelling, of course, and it makes for a good story. Every tale needs a villain, and Musk, with his outspoken, controversial remarks about the ongoing lockdown, is the perfect target. What is missing from this narrative is the fact that Musk himself has been quoted time and time again, in both spoken and written form, that workers at the plant are not forced to come to work at all. “I’d like to be super clear that if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work. I will personally be at work, but that’s just me. Totally ok if you want to stay home for any reason,” Musk wrote back in March.
A look at the social media feeds from Fremont factory workers paint a much less controversial picture amidst the facility’s reopening as well. Inasmuch as mainstream reports today are running with a narrative that suggests Tesla is forcing employees to catch the virus or perish for the sake of Musk’s pockets, such sentiments do not seem universal for the company’s workforce. Some workers at the factory have noted that they appreciate that work is being resumed, and that the company is indeed following through with its stringent anti-pandemic strategies.
But such a scenario does not paint a narrative that is as compelling as a Machiavellian CEO forcing thousands of employees to perish for his personal profits. If Tesla is simply using a playbook that is tried and tested in Shanghai, and if workers are actually appreciative of the factory’s reopening, the anti-Elon Musk narrative gets lost. If there are no evil CEOs and mass numbers of employees being abused, Tesla’s Fremont facility becomes just a regular car production facility that is reopening its doors after a shutdown: one that is no different than car factories that are already open or are poised to reopen in the coming days.
Unfortunately, the draw of Musk and Tesla and their surrounding narratives are simply too tempting to ignore.
Tesla Return to Work Playbook by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
