Connect with us

News

Northrup Grumman’s Antares set for its swan song launch

Antares 230+ on the launch pad at sunrise (Credit NASA)

Published

on

Later this evening at 8:31 p.m. ET (00:31 UTC on the 2nd), the Northrup Grumman Antares 230+ rocket is scheduled to launch its final resupply mission to the International Space Station.

The rocket will lift off from Launch Pad 0 at the Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island in Virginia, carrying the Cygnus cargo vehicle. Cygnus will be loaded with 8,200 lbs (3,719 kg) of supplies and experiments for the orbiting outpost.

The Ukrainian-built Antares launch vehicle has only been used to launch resupply missions to the ISS since its debut launch in April 2013, then owned by Orbital Sciences. Since its debut, it has had one failure and, as a result, underwent its first upgrade.

The first version of the rocket used NK-33 engines built by the Soviet Union in the 1970s, the engines were then bought by Aerojet-Rocketdyne and modified for use on the Antares rocket. The engines were renamed the AJ-26.

Antares explodes shortly after lift-off on 5th flight (Credit: NASA)

On the rocket’s 5th mission, one of those engines failed in spectacular fashion when a liquid oxygen turbopump with manufacturing defects failed 6 seconds after liftoff, causing Antares to fall back down onto the launch pad and explode.

This set off a chain of events for U.S. launch providers as the United States banned further purchasing of Russian-made engines in December 2014, a decision that was altered just a year later to accommodate United Launch Alliance, whose Atlas V rocket uses Russian-made RD-180 engines.

Advertisement

Following the failure, Antares was switched over to using the RD-181 engines and thus creating the next Antares variant, the 230 series of the rocket. This version would go on to launch 12 more times before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the resulting sanctions against Russia forced Northrup Grumman to end its reliability on the Ukrainian-built first stage and Russian engines.

In August 2022, Northrup Grumman announced they had contracted Firefly Aerospace to produce a new medium-lift rocket for the company that will be called the Antares 330. The 330 series will use 7 Miranda engines from the company. The 330 series upper stage will be the Castor 30XL solid-fueled rocket motor, with later versions using a vacuum-optimized Miranda engine to provide extra performance.

Miranda rocket engine test (Credit Firefly Aerospace)

While the Antares 330 rocket is being designed and built, Northrup Grumman has contracted SpaceX to launch 3 Cygnus resupply missions in order to fulfill their contract with NASA.

Northrup Grumman has said they expect to be able to launch the Antares 330 by Summer 2025.

The current weather outlook shows an 80% chance of acceptable conditions at lift-off. NASA will host a live stream of the launch on its YouTube page.

Questions or comments? Shoot me an email at rangle@teslarati.com, or Tweet me @RDAnglePhoto.

Advertisement

Launch journalist, specializing in launch photography. Based on the Space Coast, a short drive from Cape Canaveral and the SpaceX launch pads.

Advertisement
Comments

News

SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies

SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.

Published

on

By

SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”

This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.

Elon Musk debunks $52 billion SpaceX-NVIDIA GPU deal

 

Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.

Advertisement

Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.

Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.

If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.

The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.

Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue

Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.

The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.

Advertisement

Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.

The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.

Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.

Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.

Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.

Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.

Advertisement

While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.

Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.

Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.

Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.

France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.

Advertisement

Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.

Continue Reading