News
SpaceX considers Florida launch pad for both Falcon and Mars vehicle launches
Following a highly informative discussion at the ISS R&D conference, Elon Musk revealed that the updated, leaner version of SpaceX’s Mars architecture would likely have a diameter of around 9 meters.
A 9m Interplanetary Transport System, while precisely 25% smaller than the 12m diameter version revealed last year, would have to either lose the outer ring of full scale Raptor engines, or pivot to a smaller version of Raptor in order to preserve the 42 engine configuration shown at the IAC. Given Musk’s adamant and harsh judgement of the complexity of 27 Merlin 1D engines simultaneously firing on Falcon Heavy, moving to a 21 engine first stage for SpaceX’s Mars vehicle is a fair bet, so long as the full scale Raptor engine is still planned. Extremely speculative calculations based on the limited information available suggest that this smaller ITS could launch a bit less than half the payload of the original, still almost double the capability of Saturn V.
-
- A Space Shuttle’s external tank makes its way through downtown Los Angeles in 2011. The ET had a diameter of 8.4m. (AP/Chris Carlson)
-
- The base of SpaceX’s ITS booster, circa 2016. Current plans make it likely that the outside ring of engines will be subtracted and the vehicle made leaner. (SpaceX)
Possibly the most significant information to come out of this tweet is the implication that SpaceX and Musk are now looking to utilize current manufacturing facilities for the construction of a smaller ITS. While it adds considerable expense, the transport of a Space Shuttle’s external fuel tank through the streets of Los Angeles in 2011 sets a precedent for it being possible for SpaceX to transport a 9m vehicle from its factory in Hawthorne, CA to a nearby port. If SpaceX is able to use the same facilities it currently has for developing its Mars vehicle, it would experience immense savings compared to the cost of developing entirely new factories and testing facilities. This matches up perfectly with Musk’s repeated statement that the updated ITS is focused on improving the economic case for the vehicle and making it significantly cheaper to develop.
A 9m diameter vehicle fits in our existing factories …
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2017
Possibly the most crucial keystone of this economical update relates to the launch pad or pads that will be necessary to launch a rocket as large as either ITS. An oft-overlooked feature of the current LC-39A launch pad SpaceX leases and operates in Florida is that it and its LC-39B sibling were developed with a far larger and more powerful version of Saturn V in mind, known as Nova at the time. SpaceX is well aware of this, and is also painfully aware of just how expensive the construction of launch pads can be after having to undertake deep repairs of LC-40.
Mockups of potential solutions for a dual vehicle setup at LC-39A. With this arrangement, SpaceX would be able to continue crewed and Falcon Heavy launches from the pad while conducting initial tests and launches of their ITS. (Jay Deshetler, in addition to Cameron Byers and John Archer, based on notes from KSC pad engineers)(NASASpaceflight)
Buried in a fascinating article by Chris Bergin of NASASpaceflight.com fame, Bergin has revealed that documents and rumblings behind the scenes indicate that SpaceX is seriously considering either co-launching from LC-39B or modifying LC-39A with a second launch mount. This would require considerably modifications to the venerable pad, but it would not require the costly and time-consuming construction of an entirely new launch pad. Speculative renders and mockups (above) created by the skilled forum members of NASASpaceflight demonstrate this nicely, showing the launch mount for ITS and Falcon side by side.
Combined with Musk’s past statements about this updated version of ITS, the future is looking increasingly bright for what was initially a somewhat crazy architecture. Easier transport, recycled development facilities, and co-location on an already-constructed launch pad show that SpaceX are completely serious about their ambitions for Mars and are willing to do what is necessary to get to the Moon, the Red Planet, and beyond.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
