News
The Tesla Autopilot Excuse: How EV ignorance created the perfect storm for a misinformation nightmare
It was only a few hours after the accident and a bold statement was already making its rounds in the mainstream media. Another Tesla has crashed, and this time, it took the lives of two individuals from Texas. Facing inquiries from journalists eager for some clarity as to what happened in the tragic incident, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman shared a surprisingly confident and bold statement: there was no one in the ill-fated Model S’ driver seat when it crashed.
“They are 100% certain that no one was in the driver seat driving that vehicle at the time of impact. They are positive. And again, the height from the back seat to the front seat, that would be almost impossible, but again our investigators are trained. They handle collisions. Several of our folks are reconstructionists, but they feel very confident just with the positioning of the bodies after the impact that there was no one driving that vehicle,” Herman said, also noting that the electric car’s fire was out of control for four hours.
This statement, as well as the headlines that followed it, have since been proven false. And today, they stand as a remarkable case study on how misinformation spreads, and how the truth — even if it eventually emerges from legitimate sources — becomes largely ignored. This is the story of a Model S crash, rushed statements, and how general ignorance of electric vehicles could result in a massive misinformation nightmare.
But to get a complete view of this story, one has to go back to that fateful night on April 17, 2021, when two men, a 59-year-old Tesla owner and his 69-year-old passenger, crashed after traveling just about 550 feet, before departing the road on a curve, driving over a curb, hitting a drainage culvert and a raised manhole, and smashing into a tree. The vehicle was ablaze following its crash.
The Accident
As it is with other Tesla crashes, the Model S crash in Texas immediately caught the attention of national media. It did not take long before even foreign outlets were running with the story. It was during this initial wave of media attention that Constable Mark Herman noted that investigators were 100% sure that there was no one driving the car when it crashed. This statement was gold to numerous media outlets, with some like the New York Post posting a tweet noting that the ill-fated Tesla was on Autopilot. It’s pertinent to note that the Constable never mentioned Autopilot, though his statement declaring that there was no one in the driver’s seat seemed like a strong enough link to the driver-assist suite.
Soon, even organizations such as Consumer Reports joined the fray, graciously demonstrating that Autopilot could indeed be “fooled” into operating without a human in the driver’s seat. Consumer Reports‘ walkthrough was thorough, showing audiences exactly what needs to be done to defeat Autopilot’s safety measures. This stunt caught the eye of both national and international media as well, and by this time, the narrative was set: Teslas can drive themselves without a driver, and Autopilot could kill. It’s a chilling thought, but it is one that seemed to be casually supported by Ford CEO Jim Farley, who shared Consumer Reports‘ Autopilot defeat device walkthrough on his personal Twitter page.
This does not mean to say the narrative surrounding the fatal Model S crash in Texas was ironclad, however. Just days after the initial crash, Palmer Buck, fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department, told the Houston Chronicle that contrary to some reports in the media, the ill-fated Model S was not ablaze for four hours. The fire chief also stated that firefighters did not call Tesla for help, and he was unaware of any hotlines for tips on how to control a battery fire.
Opinion: Consumer Reports’ Tesla Autopilot stunt crossed a line in an already-heated EV climate
The First Cracks — And A Persistent Misunderstanding
Interestingly enough, even Constable Herman himself seemed less sure about his information later on, noting in a statement to Reuters that his investigators were “almost 99.9% sure” that there was no one in the driver’s seat of the ill-fated car. This was despite Herman noting that they had executed a search warrant on Tesla to secure data about the tragic incident. Meanwhile, Elon Musk went on Twitter to state that data logs so far showed that the ill-fated vehicle was not on Autopilot when it crashed.
Tesla’s online community took it upon themselves to make sense of the situation, which seemed to have red flags all over the place. The Constable’s statements seemed premature at best, and reports about the vehicle’s fire had been proven false by the fire chief. Couple this with Elon Musk noting that Autopilot was not involved, and it was no surprise that the crash became a topic for analysis and conversations among Tesla supporters. These efforts, however, were largely dismissed if not mocked, with media outlets such as VICE stating that the behavior of the Tesla sleuths was akin to those who believe in conspiracy theories.
“Rather than waiting for the two different federal authorities investigating the crash to publish their findings, some Tesla owners are engaging in the classic behavior of conspiracy theorists and amateur internet sleuths in an apparent attempt to cast doubt on even the most basic facts surrounding the crash,” the publication noted.
More cracks about the initial “Autopilot crash” narrative emerged during the company’s Q1 2021 earnings call. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s vice president of vehicle engineering, stated that the company had conducted tests with investigators, and they have determined that Autosteer could not be engaged in the area. He also stated that judging by the distance of the vehicle from the owner’s home to the crash site, the Model S would have only accelerated to 30 mph before covering the entire 550-foot distance using Adaptive Cruise Control. This is undoubtedly a clarification about the incident, but like many things in this story, this was also misunderstood.
Not long after Tesla’s Q1 2021 earnings call, CBS published a piece titled “At Least One Tesla Autopilot Feature Was Active During Texas Crash That Killed 2.” It’s definitely a catchy headline and one that was sure to draw a decent amount of eyes. There was only one problem: the whole premise of the article was false. To add salt to the wound, Texas Rep. Kevin Brady shared the CBS piece on Twitter, noting that “Despite early claims by (Tesla and Elon Musk), Autopilot WAS engaged in (the) tragic crash in The Woodlands. We need answers.”
Despite early claims by #Tesla #ElonMusk, autopilot WAS engaged in tragic crash in The Woodlands.
We need answers. https://t.co/e3TQTRv72Z
— Kevin Brady (@RepKevinBrady) April 28, 2021
A Grassroots Movement
In a world where misinformation is prevalent from media outlets that may or may not be incentivized to publish reports that are completely accurate, citizen journalism has the potential to become the voice of reason. And in the case of the Tesla Texas crash, this was certainly the case. After conversations with sources, some of whom have opted to remain anonymous, Teslarati could surmise that it was the efforts of regular people, from electric vehicle advocates and space enthusiasts who were inspired by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, that may have ultimately helped get the right information about the incident to the right place.
Days after the incident, and a few weeks before the release of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) preliminary report, @GoGundam1, a Texas-based SpaceX advocate, felt alarm bells in his head after Constable Herman declared confidently that he was 100% sure there was no one in the driver’s seat of the ill-fated Model S. Having been familiar with Elon Musk’s companies, the SpaceX enthusiast was also knowledgeable about Tesla and its products, which made the Constable’s statements seem disingenuous at best. Annoyed by the noticeably false narrative that was being formed, the space advocate sent out some feelers to test out the waters.
The story that emerged was quite remarkable. Information gathered by citizen informants suggested that by April 22, Constable Herman’s office was already in possession of video evidence that was in direct contradiction to the narrative that was initially presented to the media. It was a disturbing thought, but informants also suggested that the office of the Constable had intentions to sit on the information for as long as possible. Granted, these events may seem like they came from the plot of a semi-decent movie, but considering the relative silence from the Constable following his statements of a search warrant being submitted to Tesla, it does seem like the motivations for a follow-up report clarifying the incident were not really there.
Pertinent information about the Tesla Texas crash, no matter how valuable, would be next to useless if it did not catch the attention of the right entities. And thus, with the information gathered, the SpaceX enthusiast decided to reach out to members of the Tesla community for help. It was a challenging task, but eventually, @LordPente, a longtime Tesla advocate, decided to lend a hand. After numerous messages to other members of the Tesla community, the longtime EV advocate appeared to hit a breakthrough by (seemingly) reaching someone at Tesla. The SpaceX enthusiast, for his part, failed to get in touch with Tesla but was able to send a report to the NTSB, tipping off the agency about the additional video evidence in the Constable’s office.
During Teslarati’s conversation with the informant and the Tesla advocate, both noted that they were not really sure if their information reached the right entities. However, something happened not long after which suggested that it did.
The Lie Unravels
On May 10, 2021, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published its preliminary report about the Tesla Model S’ fatal Texas crash. As per the NTSB’s report, “footage from the owner’s home security camera shows the owner entering the car’s driver’s seat and the passenger entering the front passenger seat.” Apart from this, the NTSB also noted that tests of a similar vehicle at the crash location showed that Autopilot could not be engaged in the area, just as Tesla and the electric vehicle community suggested amidst the initial wave of “Autopilot crash” reports. The investigation is ongoing, of course, but based on what the NTSB has published so far, it appears that Autopilot has been absolved in the incident.
The findings presented in the NTSB’s report all but confirmed what Elon Musk and Tesla supporters were arguing online. It may be disappointing to media outlets like VICE, but as it turned out, the conspiracy theorist-like behavior exhibited by some Tesla sleuths online turned out to be justified. There really was misinformation being floated around, and if it wasn’t for the efforts of a few individuals, pertinent information about the incident might not have been submitted to Tesla or the NTSB on time.
Interestingly enough, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman has remained silent for now. Teslarati has attempted to reach out to his office through email but was unsuccessful. The Constable, at least for now, seems yet to issue a correction or retraction of his initial and now-debunked statements about the incident. Individuals such as Texas Rep. Kevin Brady have not admitted to making a mistake either.
How Misinformation Becomes Truth
Tesla, being a rather unorthodox company led by an equally unorthodox man, tends to fall victim to misinformation — lots and lots of it. The story of the Texas crash is a great example, but it is one drop in a whole bucket full of inaccurate reports about the company. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has seemingly thrown the towel with mainstream media coverage, reportedly abolishing Tesla’s PR department last year. This, of course, has pretty much opened the doors to even more misinformation — and to a point, even disinformation — which, in turn, becomes the general public’s truth.
For professional insights on how misinformation becomes accepted, Teslarati reached out to Stephen Benning, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Las Vegas. Professor Benning explained that humans tend to have an anchoring bias, in which the first information used to make a judgment influences it. While anchoring bias is typically considered in numerical judgments (like estimates on how much something is worth), it could also play out when people hear the first reports of what happened. This is most notable if the event were memorable, like a fatal Tesla crash. The initial information would likely stick on people’s minds and create an initial framework that sets their beliefs about an event.
“Because initial reports set people’s prior beliefs, additional information has to weigh against established beliefs. People might have additional biases at play, like the confirmation bias that filters out information that isn’t consistent with a previous set of beliefs. It’s as if people put up filters to help themselves maintain the consistency of their beliefs at the expense of their potential correspondence with reality. The initial crash reports were also likely more vivid than the drier details of the subsequent investigation, so the availability heuristic might make those initial reports more vivid and accessible in people’s memories when they think about the crash – even if they’ve followed the subsequent reports,” he wrote.
Tesla owner apologizes for staging “brake failure” incident in China
Emma Frances Bloomfield (Ph.D.), currently an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas with an expertise in strategies for combatting misinformation, explained to Teslarati that ultimately, misinformation and disinformation travel very quickly because they tend to be compelling and engaging, all while confirming an audience’s biases. This made the Texas crash a perfect storm of sorts, as it had a compelling event that catered to biases against Tesla and its Autopilot system. Unfortunately, Assistant Professor Bloomfield also highlighted that once misinformation sets in, it takes a ton of effort to overturn.
“To address misinformation, people can create more complete stories that replace the incorrect one, provide trustworthy authority figures to deliver the message, and not repeat the false information when making the correction. You can also emphasize the importance of accurate information to make the best decisions moving forward and highlight how those changes might benefit the audience/consumer. We also say, ‘correct early and correct often’ to try and get ahead of the temporal advantage misinformation has and to counter the repetition of the false information,” she wrote.
A Battle That Tesla Doesn’t Need To Lose
If there is something highlighted by Professor Benning and Assistant Professor Bloomfield, it is that misinformation is hard to battle once it’s settled in. And for a lie to settle in, it has to be repeated. The Texas crash demonstrated this. It didn’t start with a lie, but it started with a premature, careless statement that could be easily twisted into one.
The Constable’s certainty that there was no one in the driver’s seat was premature at best, and reports about the incident being an Autopilot crash were also premature then, or a lie at worst. Reports about an uncontrollable blaze burning for four hours were false as well. Yet the narrative was so hammered down and unchallenged that even when the NTSB preliminary report came out, the needle barely moved.
Elon Musk’s reservations about maintaining a relationship with the media are understandable. Years of inaccurate reports tend to do that to a person. However, Tesla could also adopt a much more assertive anti-misinformation strategy. Tesla China has been doing this as of late, to great results. Anyone following the Tesla China story would know that the company was embroiled in a PR storm that involved alleged reports of “brake failure” incidents surrounding the company’s vehicles. But after an assertive legal campaign from Tesla China, media outlets have issued apologies for misreporting on the company and social media personalities have admitted to making up alleged incidents that painted the company’s vehicles in a negative light. Granted, such strategies may not be as effective in the United States, but something has to be done. What this something is remains up for question.
Do you have anything to share with the Teslarati Team? We’d love to hear from you, email us at tips@teslarati.com.
News
Tesla gathers 93,000 FSD miles in a country where FSD isn’t approved – here’s how
Tesla has quietly logged an impressive 93,000 miles (roughly 150,000 km) of autonomous driving at its Giga Berlin factory—using Full Self-Driving (FSD) in a country where the technology remains unavailable to consumers on public roads.
Tesla has gathered 93,000 Full Self-Driving miles in a country where Full Self-Driving is not even approved. Here’s how.
Tesla has quietly logged an impressive 93,000 miles (roughly 150,000 km) of autonomous driving at its Giga Berlin factory—using Full Self-Driving (FSD) in a country where the technology remains unavailable to consumers on public roads.
The milestone, revealed alongside news that Giga Berlin has now built 750,000 Model Y vehicles, highlights how Tesla is putting its AI to work in one of the most controlled environments imaginable: it’s own factory floor.
Every Model Y that rolls off the final assembly line at Giga Berlin doesn’t need a human driver to reach the outbound lot. Instead, the freshly built vehicles engage FSD and navigate themselves across the factory campus.
The Tesla Model Ys rolling off the production line at Giga Berlin have now driven themselves on FSD a combined 93,000 miles from the end of the production line to the outbound lot. https://t.co/6RhL3W4q4p pic.twitter.com/DOKKHUcSSL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 11, 2026
The route—from the end of the production line through marked internal pathways to the staging area where cars await delivery or export—is entirely on private property. No public roads, no mixed traffic, and no regulatory hurdles for on-road autonomous operation.
It’s a closed-loop system: wide lanes, predictable layouts, minimal pedestrians, and consistent conditions that make it one of the simplest proving grounds for the software.
A short factory tour video shared by Tesla Manufacturing shows General Assembly team member Jan explaining the process. Gesturing beside a glossy black Model Y still wearing its protective wrap, he notes the cumulative distance the fleet has covered autonomously.
Tesla Giga Berlin seems to be using FSD Unsupervised to move Model Y units
The cars handle the short drive flawlessly, freeing up workers who would otherwise spend hours shuttling vehicles manually. For a high-volume plant like Giga Berlin, the time and labor savings add up quickly. Even small gains in cycle time per car can reclaim valuable space in the outbound lot and streamline logistics.
This internal deployment serves multiple purposes. First, it delivers zero-cost validation data. Each factory run exposes FSD to real-world physics—acceleration, steering precision, obstacle avoidance—in a repeatable setting far safer than public testing.
Second, it demonstrates the system’s readiness at scale. If FSD can reliably move thousands of brand-new cars without intervention inside a busy factory, it underscores the robustness of the vision-based, end-to-end neural network Tesla has been refining.
Critics often point to Europe’s cautious regulatory stance on unsupervised autonomy, yet Tesla has turned that limitation into an advantage. While owners in Germany still cannot activate consumer FSD on highways or city streets, the software is already proving its worth behind the factory gates.
The 93,000 miles represent not just internal efficiency gains but a subtle flex: the cars are manufactured ready to navigate autonomously, at least in the bounds of the factory. It’s a big feather in the cap of FSD, even if regulators have yet to green-light broader use.
As Giga Berlin continues ramping output, expect this autonomous logistics loop to grow. What began as a practical workaround for moving finished vehicles has quietly become one of the most compelling real-world showcases of FSD’s potential—right in the heart of regulated Europe. Tesla isn’t waiting for approval to perfect its autonomy; it’s already driving the future, one factory mile at a time.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals how SpaceX is always on board Air Force One
Musk confirmed Tuesday that Starlink internet is live and kicking on Air Force One. Responding with a simple “Yup!” to a post showing him and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang aboard the presidential jet en route to Beijing with President Trump, Musk proved the point: America’s most important aircraft now has seamless, high-speed satellite connectivity—even over the middle of the Pacific.
Air Force One, the official call sign for a U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President, now runs on SpaceX Starlink, CEO Elon Musk revealed.
Musk confirmed Tuesday that Starlink internet is live and kicking on Air Force One. Responding with a simple “Yup!” to a post showing him and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang aboard the presidential jet en route to Beijing with President Trump, Musk proved the point: America’s most important aircraft now has seamless, high-speed satellite connectivity—even over the middle of the Pacific.
Yup!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
The timing couldn’t be more symbolic. With trillion-dollar CEOs and the President sharing the cabin, Starlink wasn’t just a nice-to-have—it was mission-critical. No more spotty signals or dropped calls. Instead, real-time video conferences, secure data transfers, and global coordination at Mach speed.
Starlink’s aviation push has already transformed commercial and private flying. Dozens of major airlines have signed on or begun rollouts.
Hawaiian Airlines, United Airlines, Qatar Airways, Air France, SAS, WestJet, airBaltic, and Emirates (now equipping its Boeing 777 and A380 fleets) offer Starlink Wi-Fi to passengers. Lufthansa plans to follow in late 2026.
On private jets, the upgrade is even hotter: owners and charter companies report skyrocketing demand because Starlink turns cabins into flying boardrooms.
Starlink gets its latest airline adoptee for stable and reliable internet access
The advantages are massive. Traditional in-flight Wi-Fi relied on slow, high-latency geostationary satellites or ground-based systems that cut out over oceans and remote areas. Starlink’s low-Earth-orbit constellation delivers blazing speeds—often exceeding 200 Mbps download with latency as low as 25-60 milliseconds—gate-to-gate, from takeoff to landing.
Passengers stream 4K video, join Zoom calls, or work in the cloud without buffering. Pilots get real-time weather, NOTAM updates, and live ATC data. Even private-jet travelers get the benefits, as it means productivity that rivals the office.
On Air Force One, those benefits become strategic superpowers. The presidential aircraft demands unbreakable communications for national security, diplomacy, and crisis response. Starlink provides global coverage with no dead zones, offering redundancy against traditional systems that could fail in contested airspace or during long-haul flights.
It enables the President and staff to maintain secure links with the Pentagon, allies, or business leaders anywhere on Earth. During the Beijing trip, it likely facilitated direct coordination on trade, tech, and AI—proving the system’s reliability for the highest-stakes missions.
Critics once dismissed Starlink as a rich-person toy or military experiment. Now, it’s the backbone of commercial fleets, private aviation, and the world’s most visible symbol of American power, and it is providing stable internet to travelers.
With over 2,000 commercial aircraft committed and private-jet installations booming, Starlink is rewriting the rules of connected flight, and it seems like each week, a new airline is choosing to use it for on-flight connectivity.
For Air Force One, it’s more than faster Wi-Fi. It’s uninterrupted command-and-control in an increasingly connected world—ensuring the President never has to go dark at altitude. Elon Musk just made sure of it.
Elon Musk
SpaceX unveils sweeping Starship V3 upgrades ahead of May 19 launch
SpaceX has released a detailed list of changes for Starship Version 3, the next iteration of its fully reusable super-heavy-lift vehicle. Scheduled for its maiden flight as early as May 19 from Starbase in Texas, Starship V3 incorporates dozens of redesigns across the Super Heavy booster, Starship upper stage, Raptor 3 engines, and Launch Pad 2.
SpaceX has unveiled sweeping upgrades to its Starship v3 rocket ahead of the upcoming May 19 launch.
SpaceX has released a detailed list of changes for Starship Version 3, the next iteration of its fully reusable super-heavy-lift vehicle. Scheduled for its maiden flight as early as May 19 from Starbase in Texas, Starship V3 incorporates dozens of redesigns across the Super Heavy booster, Starship upper stage, Raptor 3 engines, and Launch Pad 2.
Elon Musk reveals date of SpaceX Starship v3’s maiden voyage
The updates focus on simplification, mass reduction, reliability, and enabling core capabilities like rapid reusability, in-orbit refueling, Starlink deployment, and crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
Collectively, these modifications mark a major step-change. By reducing dry mass, improving thermal protection, and integrating systems for orbital operations, Starship V3 aims to transition from test vehicle to operational infrastructure.
Here is an explicit, broken-down list of the key changes, first starting with the changes to Super Heavy V3:
- Grid Fin Redesign: Reduced from four fins to three. Each fin is now 50% larger and stronger, repositioned for better catching and lifting performance. Fins are lowered on the booster to reduce heat exposure during hot staging, with hardware moved inside the fuel tank for protection.
- Integrated Hot Staging: Eliminates the old disposable interstage shield. The booster dome is now directly exposed to upper-stage engine ignition, protected by tank pressure and steel shielding. Interstage actuators retract after separation.
- New Fuel Transfer System: Massive redesign of the fuel transfer tube—roughly the size of a Falcon 9 first stage—enables simultaneous startup of all 33 Raptors for faster, more reliable flip maneuvers.
- Engine Bay / Thermal Protection: Engine shrouds removed entirely; new shielding added between engines. Propulsion and avionics are more tightly integrated. CO₂ fire suppression system deleted for a simpler, lighter aft section.
- Propellant Loading Improvements: Switched from one quick disconnect to two separate systems for added redundancy and reduced pad complexity.
Next, we have the changes to Starship V3:
- Completely Redesigned Propulsion System: Clean-sheet redesign supports new Raptor startup, larger propellant volume, and an improved reaction control system while reducing trapped or leaked propellant risk.
- Aft Section Simplification: Fluid and electrical systems rerouted; engine shrouds and large aft cavity deleted.
- Flap Actuation Upgrade: Changed from two actuators per flap to one actuator with three motors for better redundancy, mass efficiency, and lower cost.
- Faster Starlink Deployment: Upgraded PEZ dispenser enables quicker satellite release.
- Long-Duration Spaceflight Capability: New systems for long orbital coasts, orbital refueling, cryogenic fluid management, vacuum-insulated header tanks, and high-voltage cryogenic recirculation.
- Ship-to-Ship Docking + Refueling: Four docking drogues and dedicated propellant transfer connections added to support in-space refueling architecture.
- Avionics Upgrades: 60 custom avionics units with integrated batteries, inverters, and high-voltage systems (9 MW peak power). New multi-sensor navigation for precision autonomous flight. RF sensors measure propellant in microgravity. ~50 onboard camera views and 480 Mbps Starlink connectivity for low-latency communications.
Next are the changes to the Raptor 3 Engine:
- Higher Thrust: Sea-level Raptors increased from 230 tf (507k lbf) to 250 tf (551k lbf); vacuum Raptors from 258 tf (568k lbf) to 275 tf (606k lbf).
- Lower Mass: Sea-level engine mass reduced from 1630 kg to 1525 kg.
- Simpler Design: Sensors and controllers integrated into the engine body; shrouds eliminated; new ignition system for all variants. Results in ~1 ton of vehicle-level weight savings per engine.
Finally, the upgrades to Launch Pad 2 are as follows:
- Faster propellant loading via larger farm and more pumps.
- Chopstick improvements: shorter arms, electromechanical actuators (replacing hydraulic) for reliability.
- Stronger quick-disconnect arm that swings farther away.
- Redesigned launch mount for better load handling and protection.
- New bidirectional flame diverter eliminates post-launch ablation and refurbishment.
- Hardened propellant systems with separated methane/oxygen lines and protected valves/filters.
SpaceX states these elements “are designed to enable a step-change in Starship capabilities and aim to unlock the vehicle’s core functions, including full and rapid reuse, in-space propellant transfer, deployment of Starlink satellites and orbital data centers, and the ability to send people and cargo to the Moon and Mars.”
With these upgrades, Starship V3 is poised for an epic test flight that could accelerate humanity’s multiplanetary future. The rapid pace of iteration underscores SpaceX’s relentless drive toward making life multiplanetary. Launch watchers are in for a spectacular show.
Tesla gathers 93,000 FSD miles in a country where FSD isn’t approved – here’s how
Elon Musk reveals how SpaceX is always on board Air Force One
