Connect with us

News

SpaceX lands 100th Falcon booster

SpaceX's 1st and 100th Falcon booster landings - exactly six years apart. (SpaceX)

Published

on

Exactly six years after its first successful recovery, SpaceX has landed a Falcon booster for the 100th time.

On December 21st, 2015, the first Falcon 9 V1.2 Full Thrust (Block 1) rocket lifted off from SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral LC-40 launch pad on the company’s return-to-flight mission after a catastrophic in-flight failure just six months prior. Unwilling as ever to waste an opportunity, no matter how important the mission, SpaceX – on top of debuting a major Falcon 9 upgrade – chose to take advantage of the return to flight to attempt to land a Falcon booster back on land for the first time ever. Ultimately, on top of successfully deploying multiple Orbcomm OG2 communications satellites in orbit for a paying customer, Falcon 9 booster B1019 sailed through its boostback, reentry, and landing burns without issue. About nine minutes after liftoff, the rocket ultimately touched down on a concrete “landing zone” just a few miles from where it lifted off with uncanny ease relative to SpaceX’s numerous failed attempts in the ~18 months prior.

Exactly six years later, on December 21st, 2021, Falcon 9 booster B1069 lifted off from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Pad 39A with an upgraded, flight-proven Cargo Dragon in tow for SpaceX’s 24th International Space Station (ISS) resupply mission. CRS-24 also marked the company’s 31st and final launch of 2021, representing more successful Falcon launches completed in a single year than SpaceX had even attempted in its entire nine-year history up to the point of that first successful booster landing.

Unlike B1019 and its anxiety-ridden launch and first-of-its-kind recovery attempt, Falcon booster landings are now not only routine but expected. For SpaceX, a launch without a landing – intentionally or by accident – is now so unusual that it’s practically more newsworthy than the alternative. Of the 57 launches SpaceX has now completed in the last two years, only 4 did not include a successful booster landing – of which only the loss of one was intentional.

CRS-24 was no different. About nine minutes after liftoff, after a flawless ascent, stage separation, and reentry burn, Falcon 9 B1069 fired up its engines once more and landed softly aboard drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI). Anything less would have been an oddity and a major loss for SpaceX, given that a full four Falcon boosters have already singlehandedly supported nine or more launches. The unintentional loss of any booster is already hard to swallow but it’s even more painful to lose a new booster that might have otherwise bastioned SpaceX’s fleet and supported another 10+ launches in just a year or two.

Advertisement
Pictured here in June 2021, Falcon 9 booster B1060 completed eight launches in just 12 months. B1058 – slightly older – completed the same feat one month prior. (Richard Angle/SpaceX)

Thankfully, no such fate befell B1069 and the booster now has a potentially long and productive life of launches in front of it. With just a single NASA mission under its belt, the Falcon 9 is a prime candidate to launch SpaceX’s upcoming Axiom-1 private astronaut mission, though it could just as easily support any number of upcoming missions for the US military, NASA, the Italian Space Agency (ASI), or other major customers.

Now safely in orbit, the uncrewed Dragon 2 capsule C209 – carrying 3 tons (~6500 lb) of cargo – will make its way to the ISS for the second time and dock with the station as early as 4:30 am EDT (09:30 UTC), Wednesday, December 22nd. It’ll be the capsule’s second space station arrival in a little over six months.

Pad 39A lets off some steam after its 12th and final launch of 2021. (Richard Angle)

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

News

Tesla quietly files for Model Y+ in China, and its range numbers could be wild

The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has filed for regulatory approval of a new Model Y+ in China, hinting at a long-range update to its best-selling crossover SUV. 

The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Mirroring Model 3+ Range

Based on the MIIT’s catalog, the Model Y+ will feature a 225 kW/302 horsepower single-motor setup. It will also feature ternary LG Energy Solution batteries, similar to the long-range Model 3+, which was launched earlier this year. The vehicle is expected to offer around 800 kilometers of CLTC range, potentially making it the longest range Model Y in Tesla China’s lineup.

The new Model Y+, identified under model number TSL6480BEVBR0, retains the same five-seat configuration and dimensions as the current Model Y. Though Tesla has not yet confirmed official range figures, industry observers expect it to be quite similar to the Model 3+’s 830-kilometer CLTC performance, as noted in a CNEV Post report.

Intensifying Competition

Tesla’s filing comes amid intensifying domestic competition in China. The U.S. EV maker sold 57,152 vehicles in August, down nearly 10% year-on-year, though up almost 41% from July’s 40,617 units, as noted by data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). Still, the Model Y+ could help Tesla regain traction against strong local players by offering class-leading range and improved efficiency, two factors that have become a trademark of the electric vehicle maker in China. 

Advertisement

Tesla’s experience with the Model 3+, which received a RMB 10,000 price cut within a month of launch, suggests that raw range numbers alone may not guarantee stronger sales. With this in mind, the rollout of features such as FSD could prove beneficial in boosting the company’s sales in the country. 

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

‘I don’t understand TSLAQ:’ notable investor backs Tesla, Elon Musk

Published

on

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

One notable investor that many people will recognize said today on X that he does not understand Tesla shorts, otherwise known as $TSLAQ, and he’s giving some interesting reasons.

Martin Shkreli was long known as “Pharmabro.” For years, he was known as the guy who bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim, hiked the prices, and spent a few years in Federal prison for securities fraud and conspiracy.

Shkreli is now an investor who co-founded several hedge funds, including Elea Capital, MSMB Capital Management, and MSMB Healthcare. He is also known for his frank, blunt, and straightforward responses on X.

His LinkedIn currently shows he is the Co-Founder of DL Software Inc.

One of his most recent posts on X criticized those who choose to short Tesla stock, stating he does not understand their perspective. He gave a list of reasons, which I’ll link here, as they’re not necessarily PG. I’ll list a few:

  • Fundamentals always have and will always matter
  • TSLAQ was beaten by Tesla because it’s “a great company with great management,” and they made a mistake “by betting against Elon.”
  • When Shkreli shorts stocks, he is “shorting FRAUDS and pipe dreams”

After Shkreli continued to question the idea behind shorting Tesla, he continued as he pondered the mentality behind those who choose to bet against the stock:

“I don’t understand ‘TSLAQ.’ Guy is the richest man in the world. He won. It’s over. He’s more successful with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest companies than you will ever be, x100.

You can admit you are wrong, it’s just a feeling which will dissipate with time, trust me.”

According to reports from both Fortune and Business Insider, Tesla short sellers have lost a cumulative $64.5 billion since Tesla’s IPO in 2010.

Elon Musk issues dire warning to Tesla (TSLA) shorts

Shorts did accumulate a temporary profit of $16.2 billion earlier this year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla will let you bring back this removed Model 3 part for a price

It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia/X

Tesla is now letting Model 3 owners in the United States bring back one part that the company decided to remove after it refreshed the all-electric sedan last year. Of course, you can do it for a price.

With the Model 3 “Highland” refresh that Tesla launched last year, one of the most monumental changes the company made was to ditch the turn signal stalk altogether. Instead, Tesla opted for turn signal buttons, which have been met with mixed reviews.

I drove the new Tesla Model 3, here’s what got better

The change was widely regarded as Tesla preparing for more autonomous driving in its vehicles, especially as its interiors have gotten even more minimalistic.

The lack of a stalk in the new Model 3 was just another move the company made to adjust drivers and passengers to seeing less at the steering wheel column.

However, many drivers did not prefer the use of buttons and wanted the stalk reinstalled. Tesla allowed it in several regions, launching a retrofit kit. It has now made its way to the United States:

It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.

It is interesting to note that despite Tesla’s strategy to remove the stalk with the new Model 3, which was released in early 2024, the company did not choose to make the same move with the new Model Y.

The new Model Y launched in the United States in early 2025, and Tesla chose to install a stalk in this vehicle.

It seemed as if the turn signal buttons were too much of a polarizing feature, and although the company technically could have given orderers an option, it would not have been the most efficient thing for manufacturing.

Continue Reading

Trending