News
Tesla coverage turns negative a week before crucial Earnings Call
Tesla news coverage this week has been especially negative, and the timing of it, which comes a week before arguably the most anticipated Earnings Call in recent memory. With Tesla reporting production and deliveries that were well over Wall Street’s consensus, anticipation for the Q1 2021 Earnings Call is slightly higher than usual, and the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is at an all-time high.
There are always a few negative Tesla stories every week. It might involve a story about some owners who didn’t receive adequate customer service, it might be about a production bottleneck that Tesla is encountering. However, these are relatively micro-scale issues that are resolved within a matter of days in most cases. This week, the news has been geared toward more disruptive, long-term, macro-level issues, like a very public car accident that has both sides of the Tesla circle butting heads, a test from a very well-known product review company that has to do with the aforementioned accident, and other safety issues that have resulted by a rumored irresponsible driving speed by a customer in China. Whether you agree with it or not, there seems to be a more coordinated attack on something that Tesla does well, which is to keep its drivers and owners safe. One of the strongest points of Tesla’s overwhelmingly successful venture into the automotive industry thus far was the company’s ability to keep vehicle occupants safe in the event of a crash, and also roll out software and semi-autonomous driving functionalities that aim to improve consumer safety in revolutionary ways.
This is a preview of our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
This doesn’t always turn out to be what the media wants to report, however. The week before the Q1 Earnings Call, it was relatively impossible to notice that the tide turned negative on Tesla news coverage. While it is understandable that a violent automobile crash that took the lives of two men should be covered, it captured national headlines and dominated news coverage across the world for several days. Interestingly, I don’t remember such widespread news coverage for the Ford Death Wobble.
Journalists find stories and then build upon them for other sorts of coverage. It’s spin-off coverage where readers get to see how creative the mind of a writer is. There are millions of stories that could be written based on the recent automobile accident. However, a majority of them were negative, and it doesn’t necessarily come down to truth, it comes down to perception. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that many of the journalistic coverages were completely accurate simply because of Autopilot’s misunderstood capabilities in the real world. I still receive questions and comments daily from those who I talk to who believe Teslas are capable of driving themselves. What is even more frustrating is that, at times, owners and drivers, who should have the company’s best interest at heart, spread content, Tik Toks, and other forms of social media portraying that their all-electric car can drive them from Point A to Point B while they sit in the back seat and take a nap. This kind of content is irresponsible, immoral, and wrong. Acting like a Tesla can drive itself completely just for few thousand views is a selfish act that puts the hard work of Tesla engineers at risk for losing all of their work.
That brings me to the unfortunate accident in Texas. We don’t know, yet, what the exact cause of the accident was. We don’t know who was in the driver’s seat, if AP was being tricked, or if it was even on at this point. Most evidence would likely indicate that AP couldn’t have been activated due to the lack of road lines, and the rate of travel isn’t something that AP would let the driver do, to begin with. Eventually, we will have all the facts of this story, and we will be able to accurately say who or what was responsible. But as of right now, those things cannot be speculated against.
Still, news sources are claiming that this car was “driverless,” which is a complete nonsensical narrative considering there are many boundaries that would require a driver to be present during the vehicle’s operation. This didn’t stop Consumer Reports from putting together one of the most ridiculously biased tests I have ever come across. I felt that it simply proved Tesla Autopilot would only be tricked in extreme circumstances, by not following the automaker’s directions and trying to outsmart one of the most capable semi-autonomous driving programs in the world.
The obvious effort to derail Tesla’s momentum is being noted by the fans, followers, and owners of the company. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. In my perspective, for years, MSM has been driving home the point of global climate change, using it as a way to scare people into change. While I believe that fear isn’t always the best way to convince a large group of people to do something, I think climate change is a real issue and it will affect people for generations to come. With cars being such a large contributor to the problem, you’d think the media, the same interests that have been preaching the dangers of carbon emissions for years, would report car companies who are working to transition the automotive industry to electrification, would get a “fair shake.” This just hasn’t been the case.
Trust me, I am a critic of Tesla when it is warranted. I have experienced issues with their customer service department personally, and I have been highly critical of their handling of other issues with its vehicles. I have spoken many times about the LR RWD Model Y and how it was a disgrace for Tesla to keep these pre-orderers in limbo for years. However, there are statistics that prove FSD and AP’s ultimate task: to make driving safer. Most recently, the Q1 2021 Safety Report showed Autopilot was nearly 10 times safer than a human driver. You don’t see mainstream media covering this, but you’ll notice automotive blogs and news outlets taking full advantage of the statistics, which prove Tesla’s mission is becoming more real with every mile driven.
With the momentum Tesla posted with the Production and Deliveries report, I think many people were expecting a big financial quarter. The timing of the negative news is eye-opening, and it seems to be a coordinated effort to perhaps slow down Tesla’s momentum moving forward. Tesla is gunning for yet another consecutive quarter, bringing the total to seven straight if things go well on Monday. Whether Wall Street will recognize the impressive tone of this feat, we’ll see. However, media coverage has done all it can to bring Tesla’s chances of a great quarter down, but with developments, demand, and deliveries all in healthy figures, there doesn’t seem to be much of a chance of that happening.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
News
Why SpaceX is finishing another space-internet system that isn’t Starlink
SpaceX launched three final O3b mPower satellites Sunday, finishing a lesser known SES satellite network.
SpaceX had an 87 minute window opening at 2:49 p.m. Eastern on Sunday to fly a Falcon 9 out of Cape Canaveral carrying the final three satellites for SES’s O3b mPower constellation, a project that has taken more than a decade to finish since Boeing and SES first signed SpaceX on for the work.
Unlike the thousands of Starlink satellites SpaceX has stacked into orbit over the years, O3b mPower flies in a different neighborhood entirely. The three new satellites, tagged F11, F12 and F13, are headed for medium Earth orbit at roughly 5,000 miles up, more than ten times higher than Starlink’s shell around 340 miles but still a small fraction of the 22,000 miles where old school geostationary satellites sit. That middle position is the whole point, because a satellite that far out needs far fewer siblings to blanket the globe than a low orbit constellation does. Essentially, SES only needed 13 satellites total to build a network offering quick, steady service that used to require thousands of spacecraft.
With most people having heard plenty about Starlink and almost nothing about O3b mPower, SES and SpaceX already blend the two networks for some customers. Both SpaceX and SES sell satellite broadband, but they’re aimed at different buyers. Starlink is built for volume, direct to consumers, RVs, homes, small businesses, plus a growing aviation and maritime business. O3b mPower skips consumers entirely and sells enterprise grade connectivity to airlines, cruise lines, offshore energy operators, telecoms needing backhaul, and governments, priced and provisioned more like a dedicated circuit.
A 2023 partnership lets cruise ships combine Starlink’s speed with O3b mPower’s steady capacity depending on what a ship needs at a given moment. Sunday’s completed 13 satellite constellation effectively finishes the medium orbit half of that pairing, years after.
Sunday’s mission was already a something on SpaceX’s manifest well before O3b mPower entered the picture. This flight marked its 29th trip to orbit, a history that includes two crewed Axiom missions, the European Space Agency’s Euclid telescope and 22 separate Starlink batches. SpaceX has landed boosters on the droneship A Shortfall of Gravitas so often that Sunday’s touchdown attempt, if it went as planned, was set to be the 661st successful Falcon booster landing to date.
For a company that pushed the Starlink constellation past 11,000 satellites back in August, almost entirely through bulk launches from California, Sunday’s flight was a reminder that SpaceX’s schedule still has room for someone else’s satellites too. SES gets a finished network built for a narrower set of customers, and Falcon 9 gets one more line on an already long resume.
Elon Musk
Tesla gives the Roadster an official “Go for launch” demonstration date
Tesla teased an October 1 Roadster reveal, reviving years of delayed SpaceX thruster hover promises.
Tesla teased an October 1 event date for its next generation Roadster, posting an image on X Saturday that shows the car lit up like it is sitting on a launch pad, with the date “10.01” stamped across the bottom and the caption “Go for launch.” A countdown clock on Tesla’s Roadster order page now points to the same date, which falls on a Thursday. The company has not said where the event will happen or whether it will be streamed at the moment. Stay with us @Teslarati for live updates.
Go for launch pic.twitter.com/Khu03eiZ04
— Tesla (@Tesla) September 12, 2026
Tesla has since sent formal invitations to reservation holders confirming the event will take place in Waco, Texas, about 90 minutes north of its Austin headquarters, based on a digital ticket shared on X by Sawyer Merritt. Tesla did not name the exact venue, though Waco sits close to SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas, rocket test site, previously reported as the planned location for a Roadster thruster demonstration. The invite sets the reveal for 8:30 p.m. Eastern on October 1, requires RSVPs by midnight on September 16, and limits entry to guests 21 and older. Invitations are non-transferable.
The tease follows nine years of a project defined by unimaginable specs along with slipped dates. Musk first showed the second generation Roadster in November 2017 as a surprise reveal at the end of the Tesla Semi event, promising a 0 to 60 mph time under two seconds, a top speed above 250 mph, 620 miles of range from a 200 kWh battery, and production starting in 2020. At last November’s shareholder meeting, Musk set an April 1 demo date and joked the choice gave him “deniability” if it slipped again, which it did, moving first to late April, then to “a month or so,” then to August.
Tesla Roadster SpaceX Package’s 1.1-second 0-60 mph launch visualized in concept video
Whatever Tesla shows on October 1 is expected to center on the SpaceX developed thruster package Musk has described since 2018. Internally code named A71, a nod to the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, the system reportedly uses cold gas thrusters fed by a composite overwrapped pressure vessel, the same tank design SpaceX uses on Falcon 9. Musk has said a thruster equipped Roadster could hit 60 mph in about 1.1 seconds under roughly 2.75 g of launch force, well past the 1.9 second figure quoted for the standard car. That version reportedly will not be street legal and has reportedly been discussed as a limited run sold through a track only program.
The standard Roadster is still expected to carry the original $200,000 base price and $250,000 Founders Series tier, both set when Tesla opened $50,000 and $250,000 reservations in 2017. Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy has confirmed production will happen at Gigafactory Texas, with Musk targeting 2027 or 2028, 12 to 18 months after whatever the company demonstrates next month.
Tesla is planning to roll out some pretty significant safety and accident avoidance features with Full Self-Driving version 15, which will be the next major FSD deployment from the company.
Tesla AI lead Ashok Elluswamy used a near-miss this week to preview what the company says is the next leap in Full Self-Driving.
In response to a driver whose car had swerved away from another vehicle pulling out of a parking lot, Elluswamy wrote that he was glad the owner was safe and that “even earlier prediction of hazards, even faster reaction time and overall significantly better safety and collision avoidance” would arrive with FSD v15.
Glad you are safe. Even earlier prediction of hazards, even faster reaction time and overall significantly better safety and collision avoidance coming as part of the next big upgrade (v15).
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) September 11, 2026
The comment landed as Tesla continues to treat software as the primary safety upgrade path. v15 is described internally as a larger architectural step, with a much bigger neural network and tighter coupling between prediction and control.
The company has already begun using early v15 software in some robotaxi operations while rolling out safety features such as Automatic Collision Evasion into current customer cars, allowing the driving stack to intervene even when the driver is in manual control.
Tesla is rolling out a new FSD version with a massive safety addition
Tesla’s published telemetry is the backbone of its safety argument. In recent North American Vehicle Safety Report data, vehicles with FSD (Supervised) engaged traveled roughly 5.1 million to 5.7 million miles between major collisions, defined as airbag-deployment events.
Tesla’s estimate of the U.S. average over the same period is about 699,000 miles per comparable crash. That is the comparison Tesla often frames as roughly seven times fewer major collisions.
A tighter comparison uses the same Tesla fleet. Cars driven manually with active safety features such as automatic emergency braking still recorded a major collision about every 2.1 million miles. Against that baseline, FSD’s advantage shrinks to roughly 2.4 to 2.7 times fewer severe crashes, which independent researchers argue is the more apples-to-apples figure.
European data released in 2026 pointed in the same direction: Tesla reported FSD as 3.5 times safer than manual driving in the Netherlands and 4.1 times fewer collisions than manually driven Teslas with active safety across more than 100 million kilometers in five approved countries.
Those numbers do not settle every debate. NHTSA’s Standing General Order still shows Tesla accounting for the large majority of U.S. Level 2 driver-assist crash reports, in part because the fleet logs far more assisted miles than rivals. Critics also note that Tesla’s “U.S. average” mixes crash definitions and driving mix.
Even so, Tesla’s own same-car comparisons, plus lower rates of automatic emergency braking and harsh maneuvers when FSD is engaged, are the evidence Elluswamy is pointing to when he says v15 will push prediction and collision avoidance further. The claim is not that software already eliminates risk. It is that each major version is meant to widen the gap between the system and an unaided human driver.
Why SpaceX is finishing another space-internet system that isn’t Starlink
Tesla gives the Roadster an official “Go for launch” demonstration date
