Connect with us

News

NASA says SpaceX's Crew Dragon abort test is go for launch on doomed Falcon 9 rocket

Crew Dragon capsule C205 and Falcon 9 B1046 are vertical at Pad 39A for the booster's fourth and final launch. (SpaceX)

Published

on

NASA has formally given SpaceX permission for Crew Dragon’s second launch – a crucial test flight that should be the last before SpaceX launches NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) for the first time ever.

Known as its In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, Crew Dragon will attempt to escape a Falcon 9 rocket while airborne, a feat that CEO Elon Musk says will almost certainly destroy the rocket in the process. Technically speaking, NASA and SpaceX completed what is known as a Launch Readiness Review (LRR) sometime on Thursday, allowing SpaceX to proceed with launch preparations. By all accounts, Crew Dragon’s IFA test will likely be one of the most spectacular SpaceX launches ever, given that it is all but guaranteed to result in the intentional in-flight failure of a massive Falcon 9 rocket – “destroyed in Dragon fire” according to Musk.

Thanks to a much smoother launch flow compared to Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 orbital launch debut on Falcon 9, SpaceX’s newest Crew Dragon capsule is scheduled to lift off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (KSC LC-39A) as early as 8 am EST (13:00 UTC), Saturday, January 18th. The In-Flight Abort test will likely be one of Crew Dragon’s most challenging hurdles yet but success would be a major boon for the spacecraft’s demonstrated safety. While both Boeing and SpaceX will ultimately ferry NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, only SpaceX chose to prove Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort capabilities in the real world.

Effectively condemned to destruction to support a greater cause after a productive life, Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1046 rolled out to Pad 39A – Crew Dragon mounted atop it – on January 16th after successfully performing its last routine static fire on the 11th. As previously discussed on Teslarati, B1046 is the first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster completed by SpaceX and is thus also the oldest flightworthy rocket in the company’s substantial fleet.

Advertisement

“After becoming the first SpaceX booster to launch three times in December 2018, B1046 spent several months at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory undergoing inspections and refurbishment. At some point, SpaceX assigned the thrice-flown booster to support Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test – effectively a death sentence – and shipped the booster to Florida, where it publicly appeared for the first time in months on October 3rd, 2019. Given that four more Falcon 9 boosters have now successfully performed three (or even four) orbital-class launches each, B1046’s now-imminent demise is certainly disappointing but remains extremely pragmatic.”

Teslarati.com — January 15th, 2020

https://twitter.com/CiroTweeter/status/1217985313949339649

As such, there is arguably no better booster for SpaceX to expend even if its loss is still less satisfying than a successful post-launch landing. In fact, aside from NASA’s prematurely-retired Space Shuttle, the entire history of orbital-class rocketry has effectively operated on the assumption that it’s both normal and necessary for rockets to be almost entirely expendable.

Only by sheer force of will has SpaceX turned that assumption on its head, making the act of expending Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy boosters feel suddenly morose. Even then, the practice of propulsively landing orbital-class boosters is scarcely four years old, while reusing those boosters has been ongoing for less than three years. As such, B1046’s demise should be enjoyed for what it ultimately is: the spectacular retirement of a rocket that has already helped launch three separate payloads to orbit.

Perhaps even more importantly, B1046’s sacrifice should – if things go as planned – also pave the way for Crew Dragon to launch its first NASA astronauts into orbit just a few months from now. For the test to be successful, however, Crew Dragon will have to perform an extremely precise string of maneuvers – the failure of any one of which could potentially lead to the spacecraft’s destruction.

Advertisement

“Traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s) at an altitude of 28 kilometers (17 mi), Crew Dragon will ignite its abort thrusters and attempt to escape, the very act of which will likely hammer the spacecraft’s windward surfaces with an extra dozen or so metric tons (~25,000 lb) of aerodynamic pressure. Crew Dragon C205 could thus find itself traveling almost Mach 3 (more than a kilometer per second) moments after separating from Falcon 9, eventually reaching an apogee of almost 75 km (45 mi), after which it will reenter the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere and have to deploy an array of parachutes to ensure a gentle Atlantic Ocean splashdown.”

Teslarati.com — January 13th, 2020

On November 13th, SpaceX successfully static fired Crew Dragon’s SuperDraco abort thrusters. Two months later, the spacecraft is set for its critical In-Flight Abort (IFA) test. (SpaceX)

Unfortunately, Crew Dragon escaping a supersonic Falcon 9 also means that that same Falcon 9 – basically a thin, flexible tube designed to be as light as possible – will meet a supersonic blast of air the moment Dragon’s SuperDraco abort thrusters ignite. A bit like if a hurricane on all kinds of meteorological steroids just sort of punched a soda can for fun, that airstream will almost certainly obliterate Falcon 9’s sacrificial upper stage into a sort of aluminum snow, quickly revealing – and likely then destroying – B1046’s carbon fiber interstage.

The rest of the thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster is also liable to break up after that supersonic punch. In fact, SpaceX engineers are so confident in B1046’s imminent demise that the booster will have neither landing legs or grid fins come launch. In a best-case scenario, if, against all odds, B1046 survives Dragon’s escape, the intact booster will subsequently impact the Atlantic Ocean at terminal velocity and become a nice, artificial reef off the coast of Florida. Stay tuned for updates from Teslarati and photographers Jamie Groh and Richard Angle as Falcon 9 B1046’s demise inches ever closer.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Published

on

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.

Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements

There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:

“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.

This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:

Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.

It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:

I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.

It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.

New Disengagement Categories

This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.

I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.

I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.

I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.

Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.

Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.

Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns

Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.

In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.

Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.

This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.

Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.

“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.

Highway Operation

Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.

However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:

Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs

Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.

I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.

This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.

FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:

FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

Published

on

tesla-asia-model-3
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.

The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.

The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.

Musk said:

“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:

“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.

There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.

Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:

…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history

SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.

Published

on

By

US Golden Dome space defense system (Concept render by Grok)

SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.

The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.

FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.

Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.

The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.

The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.

Continue Reading