News
Elon Musk reveals SpaceX Falcon 9 survived a water landing test
Following the picture-perfect launch of GovSat-1 on Wednesday afternoon, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter with an extremely unusual bit of news. After separating from the second stage, events relating to Falcon 9’s first stage recovery operations were heard live in the background of SpaceX’s live coverage, leading to some additional intrigue around an already odd situation.
B1032, a flight-proven (reused) booster tasked with launching GovSat-1 on its second mission, was seen with landing legs and grid fins on its sooty exterior – a confusing appearance due to SpaceX’s statement that the core would be expended into the ocean after launch. Thankfully, Elon Musk’s tweets provide at least the beginning of an answer for the several oddities.
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore. pic.twitter.com/hipmgdnq16
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 31, 2018
As stated above, GovSat-1’s Falcon 9 booster (1032) was apparently being used to test an exceptionally aggressive landing burn in lieu of a drone ship beneath it. The lack of drone ship begins to make more sense with the added knowledge that 1032 was testing experimental landing procedures: in the relatively likely eventuality that something went wrong, the massive booster would have likely impacted Of Course I Still Love You at an extremely high velocity. Similar impacts have occurred before as SpaceX gradually perfected the new technologies and operational knowledge necessary to recover orbital-class rockets, but a basic understanding of rocketry implies that 1032’s OCISLY impact would have been uniquely destructive, likely taking the ship out of action for at least several weeks of repairs.
This would pose an inherent problem for the imminent launch of Falcon Heavy, with the center of three first stages currently scheduled to attempt a landing aboard the very same drone ship in less than a week. Under optimum conditions (sans huge explosions and general destruction), OCISLY and its entourage of support vessels simply could not complete the journey back to Port Canaveral and the subsequent return to sea that would have been necessary to recovery both GovSat-1 and Falcon Heavy’s center core. Add in the potential need for repairs and expending GovSat-1 was a no-brainer for the launch company: Falcon Heavy’s center core could easily see at least one additional launch after it is recovered, whereas the twice-used 1032 effectively reached the end of its useful life after it separated from the second stage and GovSat payload earlier today.
Falcon 9 1038 aboard Just Read The Instructions after the launch of Formosat-5. (SpaceX)
As a result, SpaceX appears to have continued a trend of exploiting flight test opportunities to the greatest extent practicable by tasking B1032 with an experimental landing attempt. More specifically, Elon quickly added that the landing burn attempted by 1032 involved the ignition of three of the booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines during landing, whereas all SpaceX landings up to this point have occurred with a single Merlin 1D ignition. While the company already routinely utilizes three engines during some boostback and reentry burns, landing burns have always featured a single engine. However, by using three engines, it is entirely possible that SpaceX hopes to eventually move towards even more aggressive landing burns. While the obvious downsides likely include difficulty maintaining control and increased stresses on the booster, the benefits are also pretty inherent. By using more engines, the length of the landing burn could be drastically shortened, resulting in far more efficient propellant usage by minimizing losses to gravity (every second the rocket is trying to go upwards is a second fighting against Earth’s gravity, which pulls the rocket down at ~9.8 meters/second squared).
Incredibly, the booster somehow managed to pull off that three engine landing burn with some success, made apparent by the fact that it is intact and floating in the Atlantic, with some hope of being towed back to land. This is almost certainly the first time SpaceX has ever successfully landed a booster in the ocean without a subsequent breakup, an incredible achievement for a rocket that likely experienced exceptional stresses during reentry and landing. Time will tell how this impacts SpaceX’s future recovery efforts, but it is certainly promising as a method of extracting just a little extra performance from reusable Falcon 9s. In other words, future Falcon 9 missions might be able to carry heavier payloads into higher orbits while still being able to land at sea or even on land. Exciting times!
Elon Musk
Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story
Tesla confirmed HW3 vehicles cannot run unsupervised FSD, replacing its free upgrade promise with a discounted trade-in.
Tesla has officially confirmed that early vehicles with its Autopilot Hardware 3 (HW3) will not be capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving, while extending a path forward for legacy owners through a discounted trade-in program. The announcement came by way of Elon Musk in today’s Tesla Q1 2026 earnings call.
🚨 Our LIVE updates on the Tesla Earnings Call will take place here in a thread 🧵
Follow along below: pic.twitter.com/hzJeBitzJU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
The history here matters. HW3 launched in April 2019, and Tesla sold Full Self-Driving packages to owners on the understanding that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. Some owners paid between $8,000 and $15,000 for FSD during that period. For years, as FSD’s AI models grew more demanding, HW3 vehicles fell progressively further behind, eventually landing on FSD v12.6 in January 2025 while AI4 vehicles moved to v13 and then v14. When Musk acknowledged in January 2025 that HW3 simply could not reach unsupervised operation, and alluded to a difficult hardware retrofit.
The near-term offering is more concrete. Tesla’s head of Autopilot Ashok Elluswamy confirmed on today’s call that a V14-lite will be coming to HW3 vehicles in late June, bringing all the V14 features currently running on AI4 hardware. That is a meaningful software update for owners who have been frozen at v12.6 for over a year, and it represents genuine effort to keep older hardware relevant. Unsupervised FSD for vehicles is now targeted for Q4 2026 at the earliest, with Musk describing it as a gradual, geography-limited rollout.
For HW3 owners, the over-the-air V14-lite update is welcomed, and the discounted trade-in path at least acknowledges an old obligation. What happens next with the trade-in pricing will define how this chapter ultimately gets written. If Tesla prices the hardware path fairly, acknowledges what early adopters are owed, and delivers V14-lite on the June timeline it committed to today, it has a real opportunity to convert one of the longest-running sore subjects among early adopters into a loyalty story.
Elon Musk
Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go
Tesla’s Optimus factory in Texas targets 10 million robots yearly, with 5.2 million square feet under construction.
Tesla’s Q1 2026 Update Letter, released today, confirms that first generation Optimus production lines are now well underway at its Fremont, California factory, with a pilot line targeting one million robots per year to start. Of bigger note is a shared aerial image of a large piece of land adjacent to Gigafactory Texas, that Tesla has prominently labeled “Optimus factory site preparation.”
Permit documents show Tesla is seeking to add over 5.2 million square feet of new building space to the Giga Texas North Campus by the end of 2026, at an estimated construction investment of $5 billion to $10 billion. The longer term production target for that facility is 10 million Optimus units per year. Giga Texas already sits on 2,500 acres with over 10 million square feet of existing factory floor, and the North Campus expansion is being built to support multiple projects, including the dedicated Optimus factory, the Terafab chip fabrication facility (a joint Tesla/SpaceX/xAI venture), a Cybercab test track, road infrastructure, and supporting facilities.
Credit: TESLA
Texas makes strategic sense beyond the existing infrastructure. The state’s tax structure, lower labor costs relative to California, and the proximity to Tesla’s AI training cluster Cortex 1 and 2, both located at Giga Texas and now totaling over 230,000 H100 equivalent GPUs, means the Optimus software stack and the factory producing the hardware will share the same campus. Tesla’s Q1 report also confirmed completion of the AI5 chip tape out in April, the inference processor designed specifically to power Optimus units in the field.
As Teslarati reported, the Texas facility is intended to house Optimus V4 production at full scale. Musk told the World Economic Forum in January that Tesla plans to sell Optimus to the public by end of 2027 at a price between $20,000 and $30,000, stating, “I think everyone on earth is going to have one and want one.” He has previously pegged long term demand for general purpose humanoid robots at over 20 billion units globally, citing both consumer and industrial use cases.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday afternoon. Here’s what the company reported compared to what Wall Street analysts expected.
The earnings results come after Tesla reported a miss on vehicle deliveries for the first quarter, delivering 358,023 vehicles and building 408,386 cars during the three-month span.
As Tesla transitions more toward AI and sees itself as less of a car company, expectations for deliveries will begin to become less of a central point in the consensus of how the quarter is perceived.
Nevertheless, Tesla is leaning on its strong foundation as a car company to carry forward its AI ambitions. The first quarter is a good ground layer for the rest of the year.
Tesla Q1 2026 Earnings Results
Tesla’s Earnings Results are as follows:
- Non-GAAP EPS – $0.41 Reported vs. $0.36 Expected
- Revenues – $22.387 billion vs. $22.35 billion Expected
- Free Cash Flow – $1.444 billion
- Profit – $4.72 billion
Tesla beat analyst expectations, so it will be interesting to see how the stock responds. IN the past, we’ve seen Tesla beat analyst expectations considerably, followed by a sharp drop in stock price.
On the same token, we’ve seen Tesla miss and the stock price go up the following trading session.
Tesla will hold its Q1 2026 Earnings Call in about 90 minutes at 5:30 p.m. on the East Coast. Remarks will be made by CEO Elon Musk and other executives, who will shed some light on the investor questions that we covered earlier this week.
You can stream it below. Additionally, we will be doing our Live Blog on X and Facebook.
Q1 2026 Earnings Call at 4:30pm CT https://t.co/pkYIaGJ32y
— Tesla (@Tesla) April 22, 2026
Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story
Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go
