News
Blue Origin rocket launch fails after engine catches fire
Blue Origin’s suborbital New Shepard rocket suffered a catastrophic engine failure during its 23rd launch attempt, ending a seven-year streak of 21 successes.
Following a handful of mostly weather-related delays that pushed New Shepard’s 23rd launch about two weeks past its original August 31st target, the single-stage vehicle lifted off from Blue Origin’s Van Horn, Texas launch site around 10:25 am CDT (14:25 UTC) on September 12th. Measuring about 15 meters (49 ft) tall, 3.7 meters (12.1 ft) wide, and capable of producing about 50 tons (~110,000 lbf) of thrust with its lone BE-3 engine at full throttle, New Shepard only made it about halfway through its nominal powered ascent before catastrophe struck.
The first signs of trouble appeared about 62 seconds after liftoff in the form of flickers and flashes in New Shepard’s exhaust, which is normally almost transparent. Less than two seconds after the first seemingly harmless flash, flames unintentionally burst from New Shepard’s engine section and quickly surrounded its BE-3PM engine. Less than a second after that, the rocket’s aft and began shedding pieces and stopped producing thrust, triggering a solid rocket motor stored inside its deployable capsule.
About a second after the incident began, the capsule’s abort motor ignited and carried the suborbital spacecraft safely away from the failing New Shepard booster. The capsule ultimately coasted to an apogee of 11.4 kilometers (7.1 miles) – almost ten times lower than nominal – before descending back to Earth, deploying its parachute system, and safely touching down in the Texas desert scrub. Thankfully, NS-23 was only carrying experiments, and no humans were at risk. Had a crew of suborbital tourists been aboard, they would have likely been a little battered but otherwise completely unharmed.
..there is room for a lot of speculation ?– i did a frame by frame Picture – on the bottom row you can see some parts falling away. maybe the nozzle fell apart?!? pic.twitter.com/OOzPkPiX6G— Flo (@FloSpacenerd) September 12, 2022
While any failure of a rocket is unfortunate, the failure of a rocket nominally designed to launch humans can have even worse repercussions. However, thanks to the seemingly flawless unplanned performance of New Shepard’s abort system, it’s safe to say that the day could have gone much worse for Blue Origin.
The failure is still not going to do the reputation of Blue Origin or New Shepard any favors. It also invites less than favorable comparisons with SpaceX, a different spaceflight startup also funded and founded by a tech tycoon in the early 2000s.
Founded a year and a half after Blue Origin, SpaceX, in comparison, reached orbit with Falcon 1 in 2008. In June 2010, it successfully debuted Falcon 9, an orbital-class rocket roughly 20 times larger. In 2012, Falcon 9 successfully launched an orbital Dragon spacecraft which became the first private vehicle to dock to the International Space Station. In January 2015, it attempted to recover a Falcon 9 booster for the first time. In December 2015, one month after Blue Origin’s first successful New Shepard landing, SpaceX aced its first Falcon 9 booster landing.
Nine months later, Falcon 9 suffered a catastrophic failure during prelaunch testing in September 2016 and didn’t return to flight until January 2017. That is where, for the most part, the paths of Blue Origin and SpaceX almost entirely diverged – but not in any obvious way. Instead, after a successful suborbital launch in October 2016, New Shepard didn’t fly again until December 2017. In the roughly six years between October 2016 and September 2022, New Shepard completed 10 uncrewed suborbital launches, 6 suborbital tourist launches, and suffered one failure during another uncrewed mission – 18 total launches.
Despite suffering a catastrophic failure that destroyed a customer’s multimillion-dollar satellite in September 2016, SpaceX returned to flight four months later, completed 150 orbital Falcon launches without fail in the same period; debuted the world’s largest operational rocket, Falcon Heavy, and completed two additional launches with it; debuted Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon 2 on Falcon 9; launched its first astronauts into orbit, launched its first operational astronaut transport mission for NASA, launched its first two Starlink internet satellite prototypes, launched another 60 refined Starlink prototypes, began operational Falcon 9 Starlink launches, built and launched more than 3000 Starlink satellites total; landed 130+ Falcon boosters, and reuse Falcon boosters 117 times.
The differences could not be more stark or strange, given that both companies have been operating more or less side by side and working towards similar goals for as long as they’ve existed. To Blue Origin’s credit, the company managed a record six New Shepard launches – three carrying tourists – in 2021. NS-23 was its fourth planned launch in 2022, suggesting that it could have achieved a similar cadence this year if the mission had had a different fate. Instead, the launch failure has triggered an anomaly investigation that will search for the root cause and try to uncover shortcomings that will then need to be rectified before New Shepard can return to flight. Given that Blue Origin once went 15 months between successful New Shepard launches, it’s impossible to say how long that process will take.
In the meantime, the apparent failure of New Shepard’s BE-3PM engine could trigger investigations into Blue Origin’s other engine programs. While substantially different, BE-3U, a variant optimized for the upper stage of New Glenn, Blue Origin’s first orbital rocket, likely shares the most in common with New Shepard’s BE-3PM. BE-7, a small engine meant to power a Moon lander, could also be impacted.
Most importantly, Blue Origin is also in the midst of finally preparing two much more powerful and far more complex BE-4 engines for customer United Launch Alliance (ULA). Years behind schedule, Blue Origin completed the first two theoretically flightworthy BE-4 engines and began putting them through qualification testing earlier this year. It wants to ship those engines to ULA as soon as possible to avoid delaying the debut of the customer’s new Vulcan Centaur rocket. BE-3PM and BE-4 probably don’t share a single part, but many Blue Origin employees have likely worked on both programs, and the same Blue Origin leadership has certainly overseen both. As long as there’s any form of commonality, no matter how abstract, there’s always a risk that the underlying cause of problems in one program could be present in others.
Ultimately, it’s unlikely that there will be any serious connection. The New Shepard booster that failed on NS-23 was almost five years old and was flying for a record-breaking ninth time. It’s possible that Blue Origin was privately worried about the possibility of failure while pushing the envelope, but it offered no qualifications while discussing the mission. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, in comparison, has almost always made it clear that failure is a possibility when the company attempts ‘firsts’ of any kind.
SpaceX recently launched and recovered the same Falcon 9 booster for the 14th time, setting its own internal record. As a result, that lone Falcon 9 booster, B1058, has flown as many times in the last 31 months as all New Shepard boosters combined have flown in the last 45 months.
Finally, while no company should be put in that position, Blue Origin deserves praise for its live coverage of the anomaly. Instead of immediately cutting the feeds, which would be what most providers would be expected to do during an operational launch, Blue Origin continued to broadcast views of the failure and provide live commentary until New Shepard’s capsule touched down well ahead of schedule.
News
Tesla Cybertruck sales bolstered by bold Musk move, report claims
If accurate, that means nearly one in every five Cybertrucks registered in the quarter was transferred internally within Musk’s business empire. The purchases, valued at more than $100 million, have continued into 2026.
A new report from Bloomberg claims Tesla Cybertruck sales were inflated by internal buyers, meaning companies owned by CEO Elon Musk, and most notably, SpaceX.
According to a new registration data analysis, a significant portion of the fourth quarter’s Cybertruck sales came from Musk companies.
In the fourth quarter of 2025, 7,071 Cybertrucks were registered in the United States. SpaceX, Musk’s rocket and satellite company, accounted for 1,279 of those vehicles—more than 18 percent of the total. Musk’s additional ventures, including xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink, acquired another 60 trucks during the same period.
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
If accurate, that means nearly one in every five Cybertrucks registered in the quarter was transferred internally within Musk’s business empire. The purchases, valued at more than $100 million, have continued into 2026.
These internal sales supplemented the Cybertruck’s overall performance for the quarter, as without them, sales would have plunged 51 percent. The vehicle, which has repeatedly been called “the best product Tesla has ever made,” has fallen short of expectations due to pricing.
When first unveiled back in 2019, Tesla had a $39,990, $49,990, and $69,990 configuration for sale. Those prices inflated significantly as the truck was not released to customers until 2023. Those who had placed orders for affordable configurations were priced out.
Sam Fiorani, VP of Global Vehicle Forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions, said, “Tesla is running out of buyers for the Cybertruck.” In reality, there are probably a lot of buyers, but they simply cannot afford the truck at its current price point.
The Cybertruck was supposed to broaden Tesla’s appeal beyond its core lineup of sleek sedans and SUVs. While it has done a lot for brand notoriety, it has not lived up to its monumental expectations, and it’s simply because the truck has not been as available as most had thought.
The truck is still the best-selling electric pickup in the country, outpacing rivals like the Ford F-150 Lightning and Chevrolet Silverado EV. It is also not uncommon for companies to use their own vehicles for internal operations, like Ford using its own Transit van for Mobile Service.
However, this much inventory of Cybertrucks being purchased by Musk’s companies is not what you love to see as a fan or investor.
News
Tesla Signature Model S, X owners get hit with crazy no-resale clause
With production of the Model S and X winding down to focus on next-generation projects like the Optimus robot, Tesla is building just 250 units of each model. Priced at $159,420, these exclusive vehicles come loaded with bespoke features and the full Luxe Package—but buyers must sign a binding contract before delivery that bars resale for one full year.
Tesla Signature Model S and X owners got hit with a crazy no-resale clause by the company, a move that has been used before to limit the immediate resale of a vehicle to obtain a sizeable profit.
Tesla has introduced a strict “No Resale Agreement” for its ultra-limited Signature Edition Model S and Model X Plaid vehicles, signaling the automaker’s determination to keep these final flagship models in the hands of genuine enthusiasts rather than speculators.
With production of the Model S and X winding down to focus on next-generation projects like the Optimus robot, Tesla is building just 250 units of each model. Priced at $159,420, these exclusive vehicles come loaded with bespoke features and the full Luxe Package—but buyers must sign a binding contract before delivery that bars resale for one full year.
Signature Edition Model S/X orders contain a No Resale Agreement.
Here is the document.
Additionally, here is the resale clause which states the Luxe Package does not transfer (this is not new) pic.twitter.com/CGB5QBJIL6
— The Cybertruck Guy (@cybrtrkguy) April 12, 2026
Purchasers promise they “will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the vehicle within the first year following your vehicle’s delivery date.”
Violators face steep consequences: Tesla can pursue liquidated damages equal to $50,000 or the full amount received from any sale or transfer, whichever is greater. The company also reserves the right to refuse future vehicle sales to anyone who breaches the clause. Orders are account-specific, requiring buyers to log in with their personal Tesla account, which further complicates any informal transfers.
The restrictions extend beyond the one-year lockout. Even after the prohibition period ends, key elements of the Signature Edition’s appeal do not transfer with the car. The Luxe Package—bundling lifetime Full Self-Driving (Supervised), free lifetime Supercharging, and permanent Premium Connectivity—terminates upon any change in ownership.
While four years of Premium Service, tire, and windshield protection plans do transfer, the high-value software and charging perks effectively vanish for the second owner. This non-transferability has long been Tesla’s policy for Luxe-equipped vehicles, but it carries extra weight on a nearly $160,000 limited-run model.
Tesla’s move is a direct response to past flipping of rare editions. By tying the car to the original buyer’s account and imposing financial penalties, the company aims to curb gray-market speculation that could drive prices far above MSRP.
Critics of the no-resale clause argue that the agreement limits personal property rights and could complicate legitimate life events like relocation or financial hardship.
For now, the policy appears ironclad. Deliveries of the Signature Editions are expected to begin in May 2026, complete with Garnet Red paint, gold-accented badging, Alcantara interiors, yoke steering, and unique numbered plaques.
In an era when limited-edition vehicles often become instant investment pieces, Tesla is betting that true fans will embrace the rules. Whether the No Resale Agreement successfully protects the final chapter of the Model S and X legacy remains to be seen—but one thing is clear: these will be among the most tightly controlled Teslas ever sold.
News
Tesla just tipped its hand on a major Cybercab feature as production hits Plaid Mode
Tesla has delivered a clear signal that its Robotaxi ambitions are shifting into high gear. On April 17, longtime factory observer and drone pilot Joe Tegtmeyer captured drone footage and still images showing approximately 14 freshly built Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot—each one conspicuously lacking a steering wheel.
Tesla just tipped its hand on a major Cybercab feature as it is putting production into Plaid Mode, but a clear indication of what the company plans to do with the vehicle is now apparent.
Tesla has delivered a clear signal that its Robotaxi ambitions are shifting into high gear, and it’s doing it with full autonomy in mind.
On April 17, longtime factory observer and drone pilot Joe Tegtmeyer captured drone footage and still images showing approximately 14 newly built Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot, each conspicuously lacking a steering wheel, and potentially pedals.
Tegtmeyer’s post highlighted the significance of this development: The images and video reveal sleek, two-seat Cybercabs in their final production form: no driver controls, no side mirrors, and the minimalist interior first unveiled at Tesla’s “We Robot” event in October 2024.
Something big has changed at Giga Texas with Cybercab production … ~ 14 in the outbound lot WITHOUT STEERING WHEELS!
Earlier this week, the production line has begun what we are all waiting for and I would expect to see many more starting on Monday, 4/20 🤠
A big step… pic.twitter.com/K17ZzBlQ8k
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) April 17, 2026
These units contrast with earlier test vehicles spotted at the factory’s crash-test area, which carried temporary steering wheels and pedals to meet current federal regulations during data-collection phases.
The outbound-lot vehicles appear complete, with production wheels, tire stickers, and the signature Cybercab styling ready for deployment.
This sighting represents a pivotal transition. Tesla designed the Cybercab from the ground up as a purpose-built robotaxi, engineered for unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) operation. Removing manual controls eliminates cost, complexity, and weight while maximizing interior space and range.
The move also signals that Tesla has cleared initial validation hurdles and is now building vehicles to the exact specification intended for commercial robotaxi service.
Industry watchers note the timing aligns with Tesla’s broader rollout plans. Production of early Cybercabs began in late 2025 and early 2026, primarily for internal testing and regulatory compliance.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards currently limit vehicles without steering wheels to 2,500 units per year without exemption, a cap that Tesla is navigating through ongoing filings.
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The appearance of steering-wheel-free units in the outbound lot suggests the company is preparing a small initial fleet—likely for Austin pilot operations or further validation—while pushing for regulatory relief to scale output.
The development comes as Tesla ramps its dedicated Cybercab line at Gigafactory Texas. If the Monday surge materializes as predicted, observers expect dozens more units to accumulate rapidly.
With unsupervised FSD advancing and regulatory conversations ongoing, these wheel-less Cybercabs parked under the Texas sun represent more than hardware—they embody Tesla’s bet that autonomous mobility is no longer a prototype dream but an imminent reality.
Tesla Cybertruck sales bolstered by bold Musk move, report claims
Tesla Signature Model S, X owners get hit with crazy no-resale clause
