NASA puts astronauts’ lives in the hands of Tesla’s flaky Cybertruck 33%

8/3/2026, 11:31:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Halo Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.2% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 525 faulty-reasoning hits from 536 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.1% and a BS Rank of 33% (19,210 of 28,475 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.50% of the article peer group.

Tesla has recalled its Cybertruck 11 times to fix issues such as exterior trim panels falling off and an accelerator pedal that can become stuck, but NASA has nonetheless decided the rust-prone vehicle is up to the job of rescuing astronauts if trouble strikes on the launchpad of a forthcoming crewed mission. 
Muskmobiles will get the job currently performed by the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP), a heavily armored military personnel carrier that can survive small arms fire and even the effects of a mine explosion. 
Several companies make MRAPs, and the US military operates dozens of different models tailored to different missions. 
NASA uses MRAPs as launchpad getaway cars in case mission controllers decide astronauts or other personnel involved in rocket launches must make a rapid exit. 
In 2015, the aerospace agency described the MRAPs it uses as possessing “armor is so thick that each door weighs 600 pounds” and said the vehicles have “the sound and feel of a bank vault” and can therefore “function as a bunker on its own, even if it stays put.” 
News of the Cybertruck’s new role came during a Monday event at which NASA discussed SpaceX Crew-13, a mission it has scheduled to carry four astronauts to the International Space Station no earlier than 12 September 2026. 
The four will travel aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9, and as Elon Musk’s rocket company already uses Cybertrucks during its own launches, NASA has decided to adopt them for this launch. 
During the event, media asked if SpaceX has modified the Cybertrucks. 
Joel Montalbano, deputy associate administrator at NASA’s Human Spaceflight Mission Directorate, said he was not aware of any modifications. 
Tesla says the Cybertruck is made of stainless steel and is therefore “tough on the outside to keep you safe on the inside.” 
The company also trumpets “Cabin windows and glass roof have shatter-resistant armor glass that can handle the impact of hail the size of a baseball (or an actual baseball).” 
When launching the Cybertruck, Elon Musk claimed the glass was impervious to heavy metal balls, but his demo of that strength went comically awry. 
Montalbano said NASA is comfortable using Cybertrucks because they’re faster than MRAPs and easier to drive while wearing gloves. 
The exec added that the main reason for using the Muskmobiles is that it means NASA doesn’t have to arrange for an MRAP crew to attend launches, an effort he characterized as wasteful given that SpaceX has its own way of doing things involving Cybertrucks. 
SpaceX Crew-13’s crew comprises NASA’s Jessica Watkins and Luke Delaney, plus the Canadian Space Agency’s Joshua Kutryk and Roscosmos cosmonaut Sergey Teteryatnikov. 
They’re all destined to join Expedition 75 on the ISS. 
Watkins will become the first person to twice reach the ISS in a SpaceX Dragon capsule. 
NASA says the expedition will explore in-space manufacturing techniques, augmented reality and artificial intelligence methods for crew health checks, and bioprinting human tissue. 
SpaceX has conducted 90 launches of its Falcon rockets in 2026 alone, and all made it off the launchpad  suggesting a high likelihood the Cybertruck’s suitability as a rescue vehicle won’t be tested by Crew-13. 
® 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Register: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%The Register: 2.9%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 4.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.4%The Register: 0.8%Status Quo Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%The Register: 2.9%Optimism Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%The Register: 7.4%Negativity Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%The Register: 1.1%Halo Effect9.7%This article: 2.1%The Register: 0.1%Horn Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.4%The Register: 1.4%False Dilemma8.4%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%The Register: 5.4%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 9.7%The Register: 0.3%Red Herring9.7%This article: 5.8%The Register: 0.6%Bandwagon5.8%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.4%The Register: 0.1%Appeal to Nature5.4%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.5%The Register: 1.8%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.1%The Register: 6.6%Biased Writer Voice2.1%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

536 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers39%attributed speech328writer words
Selected voice

Tesla

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words25% of attributed speech47% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Tesla: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.