News
Tesla modules retrieved by NTSB could reveal clues on fatal Model X crash
NTSB investigators looking into the fatal Tesla Model X crash have retrieved the ill-fated SUV’s restraint control module and infotainment module from the wreckage of the vehicle.
Photographs of the ongoing NTSB investigation have been shared online by ABC7 News photographer Dean C. Smith. The series of pictures depicts a team of investigators from both the NTSB and the CHP’s Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team inspecting the wrecked Tesla. Smith was also able to photograph a module from the electric SUV being placed inside an evidence bag.
The NTSB later confirmed to the local news agency that the investigators were able to recover two components of the destroyed Model X — the vehicle’s restraint control module and its infotainment module. NTSB Spokesman Christopher O’Neil noted that the NTSB would be working with Tesla and the CHP in analyzing the data stored in the two devices.
“We’re going to work with CHP and Tesla to download the information from those modules and then see what data is available to us that might give insights into what was going on during the accident sequence,” O’Neil said.
Images of the continuing investigation from the NTSB and CHP could be viewed below.
- The NTSB’s investigation into a fatal Tesla Model X crash continues. [Credit: Dean C. Smith/Twitter]
- The NTSB’s investigation into a fatal Tesla Model X crash continues. [Credit: Dean C. Smith/Twitter]
- The NTSB’s investigation into a fatal Tesla Model X crash continues. [Credit: Dean C. Smith/Twitter]
- The NTSB’s investigation into a fatal Tesla Model X crash continues. [Credit: Dean C. Smith/Twitter]
Will Huang, the brother of the ill-fated electric SUV’s driver, has also shared some of his insights about the crash in a statement to ABC7. According to Will, his brother had brought the car to the Tesla service center before the accident due to what he believes were issues with the Model X’s Autopilot. Tesla has noted, however, that the owner of the Model X had taken the vehicle to the service center because of concerns about the SUV’s navigation, not its Autopilot, according to the local news agency.
“We’ve been doing a thorough search of our service records, and we cannot find anything suggesting that the customer ever complained to Tesla about the performance of Autopilot. There was a concern raised once about navigation not working correctly, but Autopilot’s performance is unrelated to navigation,” Tesla reportedly stated.
In a statement to the local news agency, Will Huang noted that a crash attenuator could have likely saved his brother’s life. Crash attenuators, better known as crash cushions, are designed to absorb the impact of a vehicle’s collision. As noted by Tesla in its blog post yesterday, however, a huge part of the crash cushion on the spot where the Model X met its end had been removed due to a previous collision.
“That (the crash attenuator) ultimately should’ve saved my brother’s life. We’ve seen videos of similar crash(es) with cushion, and the driver walked out of it unharmed,” Huang noted.
In a recent announcement on its Twitter account, CHP Redwood City revealed that the last collision recorded at the same location as the ill-fated Model X crash happened on March 12, 2018, 11 days before the Tesla’s accident.
Update on #Tesla collision: Per media request, the last collision recorded at that same location took place on Monday 3/12/2018 at 2230 hours. pic.twitter.com/ibizNYWOkk
— CHP Redwood City (@CHP_RedwoodCity) March 29, 2018
The Tesla Model X has a 5-star safety rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The electric SUV is equipped with 12 airbags — head and knee airbags in the front, 2 side curtain airbags, 4 seat-mounted side airbags, and 2 door-mounted airbags — which cocoon a driver and the vehicle’s passengers during an accident. As we reported last December, a Model X successfully protected its driver after getting into an accident with a car traveling at near-highway speeds. During that incident, all the Model X’s airbags deployed, and the driver was able to walk away from the collision unharmed.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.



