News
Astra ‘Rocket 3’ nosecone dooms first Florida launch attempt
On Thursday, February 10th, Astra Space’s Rocket 3.3 launch vehicle took off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) Launch Complex 46 (LC-46).
Unfortunately, while liftoff and booster ascent appeared to be more or less perfect, Rocket 3’s payload fairing failed to separate, triggering a series of events that caused its upper stage to enter an uncontrolled and unrecoverable spin after burning for just a few seconds. Astra was unable to salvage the spinning rocket, resulting in a mission failure well short of orbit.
“Unfortunately we heard that an issue has been experienced during flight that prevented the delivery of our customer payloads to orbit today. We are deeply sorry to our customers NASA, University of Alabama, the University of Mexico and the University of California Berkeley,” said Astra Space Director of Product Management Carolina Grossman. “More information will be provided as we complete the data review.”
Today’s launch comes after two previous aborted launch attempts. The first attempt on February 5th was delayed due to a CCSFS radar system malfunction. The second launch delay came on February 7th, after the rocket aborted briefly after ignition because of a minor telemetry issue.
The Mission
NASA’s first mission under the agency’s Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) Demonstration 2 contract hoped to launch four CubeSats to space as early as February 5th, 2022. The satellites, which made up the agency’s 41st Educational Launch of Nano-satellites (ELaNa) mission, were the first VCLS payloads launched – albeit unsuccessfully – from Cape Canaveral’s LC-46 pad, which last supported NASA’s Orion spacecraft Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) test flight in July 2019.
The satellites onboard the flight were developed by three universities and one NASA center:
- BAMA 1 (University of Alabama, Tusscolusa)
- INCA (New Mexico State University, Las Cruces)
- QubeSat (University of California, Berkeley)
- R5-S1 (NASA’s Johnson Space Center, Houston)
The ELaNa 41 mission CubeSats were selected through NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) and were assigned to the mission by NASA’s Launch Services Program based at Kennedy. CSLI provides launch opportunities for small satellite payloads built by universities, high schools, NASA Centers, and non-profit organizations.
About Astra
Founded in 2016, Astra Space is an American launch vehicle company based in Alameda, California. Astra’s official vision “is to Improve Life on Earth from Space by creating a healthier and more connected planet.” The company hopes to secure a large portion of the small satellite launch market, stating that it “offers the lowest cost-per-launch dedicated orbital launch service of any operational launch provider in the world.”
-
As of November 2021, Astra charges around $2.5-3.5M for a dedicated Rocket 3 launch, which can deliver up to 150 kg (330 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO). In comparison, for a dedicated Electron launch, Rocket Lab charges about $7.5M for 300 kg (660 lb) to LEO. For customers willing to accept a one-size-fits-all rideshare solution, SpaceX charges $1M for 200 kg (440 lb) to LEO or higher sun-synchronous orbits (SSOs).
While the aerospace company is based out of California, its frequent orbital and suborbital test flights have all been conducted at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska. Prior test flights used Rocket 1, Rocket 2, and Rocket 3 prototypes as Astra refined its design and embraced a hardware-rich development style that didn’t shy away from failure.
Rocket 3.3 reached orbit for the first time – carrying an instrumented boilerplate payload for the United States Space Force – on November 21st, 2021. Less than two months later, Rocket 3.3 (serial number LV08) attempted to carry several NASA-sponsored cubesats into orbit on February 10th, 2022 – also the rocket’s first East Coast launch. Like Rocket 3.3’s predecessors, the two-stage vehicle was fueled with liquid oxygen (LOx) and refined kerosene (RP-1). Powered by five Delphin engines, the first stage produces up to ~145 kilonewtons (32,500 lbf) of thrust at liftoff. The second stage is powered by one pressure-fed Aether engine that delivers about 3.3 kN (740 lbf) of thrust in the vacuum of space.
The unsuccessful launch attempt occurred just three months after Astra applied for their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launch license and less than one day after receiving that license.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
