News
Panasonic finds itself in need of some Tesla-style boldness as it enters its next era
Tesla’s oldest battery partner, Panasonic, is finding itself at a crossroads once more. With Chief Executive Kazuhiro Tsuga poised to step down next June, the massive Japanese conglomerate is feeling some pressure to optimize and streamline itself. To accomplish this, Panasonic may need to channel one of its key battery partners, Tesla, and its CEO, Elon Musk, to make the bold decisions needed to thrive in a new era.
When Tsuga took Panasonic’s reins eight years ago, he stated that his first priority would be to return the massive conglomerate into a profitable “normal company.” He did not disappoint. Tsuga stemmed a record loss by pulling the company out of the plasma television market and repositioning the firm as an automotive-and-housing conglomerate. The veteran Japanese executive also did something unexpected: he initiated a $5 billion battery manufacturing tie-up with Tesla in 2014.
Tsuga’s strategy of partnering with Tesla, then an unproven electric car maker, and a CEO known for a Tony Stark-like persona, was considered a courageous move on the Japanese conglomerate’s part. The partnership of the experienced Japanese veteran and assertive US startup bore fruit, with Gigafactory Nevada becoming the world’s largest battery facility. Its operations with Tesla are even closing in on its first annual profit. But the journey to this point was not easy.
As noted in a Financial Times report, Panasonic and Tesla clashed over the years, and these tensions reportedly manifested themselves when the Japanese firm decided to not invest in Gigafactory Shanghai. This resulted in Tesla partnering with other suppliers like LG Chem and Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL). Tesla has also announced plans to start producing its own 4680 tabless cells for its vehicles and energy storage products.
As the outgoing Panasonic CEO prepares to step down in June, his promise of running a “normal company” is leaving a bitter aftertaste to the company he will leave behind. Over the years, rivals such as Sony and Hitachi have gone on massive divestment initiatives to streamline their businesses. And while Panasonic has followed a similar path, executives continue to struggle to define what kind of company it is. Newly-appointed chief executive Yuki Kusumi, who is poised to succeed Tsuga, referenced this when he stated that Panasonic could achieve growth if it could optimize businesses that excelled in its portfolio, which currently stretches across a whopping 520 subsidiaries.
The outgoing Panasonic CEO, as a final departing measure, is hoping to change the company into a holding company structure, which is similar to a move that rival Sony will make around April. According to Panasonic, the shift, which is expected to be completed in 2022, could help accelerate decision-making across the conglomerate by running its units independently. Yet even this strategy poses challenges for Panasonic since unlike Sony, which has found its “core” in the games, films, animation, and the music segment, Panasonic’s “core” still seems unclear. This difference is evident when one looks at the two Japanese firms’ performance in the market. Sony has increased 78% since February while Panasonic has dropped 30%.
But things may be looking up for Panasonic. When he announced Panasonic’s shift to a holding company, Tsuga resurrected car batteries as a “core” by branding it as an “energy business.” Thanks in part to this, as well as the ongoing expansion of profitable projects like Gigafactory Nevada, Panasonic’s next CEO, Yuki Kusumi, would be taking control of a company that is in a much better financial position as the one handed over to his predecessor. As highlighted by the Financial Times, if Kusumi would like to usher in a revival or a breakthrough of sorts for Panasonic in the coming years, he would have to channel less of his predecessor’s “normal company” strategy and more of the boldness characteristic of partners like Tesla.
Markets like the battery industry are only just heating up, after all. While Tesla has stated that it intends to keep and grow its partnership with suppliers like Panasonic despite its own battery production plans, competitors like LG Chem and CATL are not sitting out the next few years. LG has even posted a bold challenge of sorts to the Japanese conglomerate recently, with the South Korean firm stating that it has every intention to become Tesla’s main battery supplier in the near future, effectively taking Panasonic’s place. With some Elon Musk-style boldness, however, perhaps Panasonic could still keep its lead in the battery sector, and perhaps even increase its reach in the growing EV segment.
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
