News
SpaceX beats Falcon 9 recovery records after company’s heaviest launch ever
Completed on May 30th, SpaceX’s latest Falcon 9 booster recovery smashed several internal speed records, unofficially cataloged over the years by watchful fans.
In short, as the company’s experienced recovery technicians continue to gain experience and grow familiar with Falcon 9 Block 5, the length of booster recoveries have consistently decreased in the 12 months since Block 5’s launch debut. Already, the efficiency of recovery processing has gotten to the point that – once SpaceX optimizes Block 5’s design for refurbishment-free reuse – there should be no logistical reason the company can’t fly the same booster twice in ~24-48 hours.
The road to rapid reusability
Rarely will it make headlines, but the fact remains that SpaceX’s ultimate goal is not just to reuse Falcon 9 (and other) boosters, but to do so with a level of routine efficiency approaching that of modern passenger aircraft. It’s reasonable to assume that chemical rockets might never reach those capabilities, but they may certainly be able to improve enough to radically change the relationship between humans and spaceflight.
Along that line of thinking, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decided years ago that an excellent representative goal for Falcon 9 would be to launch the same booster twice in 24 hours. In the last year or so, that largely arbitrary target has changed a bit and is now believed to be a bit wider, aiming for booster reuse within a few days of recovery. This is a pragmatic adjustment more than a technical criticism of Falcon 9.
In general, Falcon 9 simply doesn’t have the performance necessary for routine reusability timelines measured in hours. The majority of SpaceX launches need enough of Falcon 9’s performance to necessitate recovery aboard one of SpaceX’s two drone ships, typically stationed at least a 200-300 km (100-200 mi) offshore. That fact alone almost single-handedly kills any chance of sub-24-hour booster reuse, given that the process of towing the booster-carrying drone ship back to port happens at a max speed of ~10 mph (15 km/h). Just gaining permission to enter the port itself often involves waits of 6+ hours a few miles offshore.
Low orbit, low mass Falcon 9 missions are much more promising for extremely rapid reusability, given that both of SpaceX’s West and East coast landing zones are located just a few miles (or less than 1500 feet, in the case of LZ-4) from their corresponding launch pads and processing facilities. However, these missions are quite rare, while SpaceX’s own low Earth orbit (LEO) Starlink launches will likely involve payloads so heavy that long-distance drone ship recoveries will be necessary.
Finally, there are Falcon Heavy launches, most of which will allow for both side boosters to return to the Florida coast for landings at LZ-1/LZ-2. However, these pose their own barriers to rapid reuse, mainly due to the fact that side boosters – while technically just Falcon 9 boosters – would need major changes to support a single-stack Falcon 9 launch. Falcon Heavy launches simply aren’t going to happen back-to-back over a period of 24-48 hours, so that option is also out of the question.
This means that SpaceX’s only real option for practical rapid reuse is to instead focus on something closer to a weekly launch capability for Block 5 boosters, meaning that the same booster would be able to launch, land, return to shore, and prepare for the next launch in the same week. Even then, launch site readiness may still stand in the way of truly radical improvements in booster reuse and launch frequency. After each launch, SpaceX’s pads and transporter/erectors take a significant beating, requiring routine repairs and maintenance before returning to flight-readiness. Barring major improvements, SpaceX has demonstrated minimum launch-to-launch times of roughly 10 days, and cutting that figure by 50-90% will be a major challenge for a rocket as powerful as Falcon 9.
B1049 takes a step forward
Despite the many logistical reasons that Falcon 9 will likely never lend itself to routine ~24-hour reusability, having that latent capability would still mean that the hardware is advanced enough to offer that efficiency. Even if SpaceX can’t literally fly each booster at its operational capacity, nearly refurbishment-free reflights will still translate into dramatically lower launch costs. Modern civilian aircraft need not fly every second of every day to still be affordable to operate (excluding amortization costs).
Ultimately, SpaceX has been taking small steps in that direction ever since the company began recovering (and reusing) Falcon 9 boosters. Falcon 9 B1049’s third recovery has been one of the best (and most record-breaking) steps yet, but those records were only just broken The most significant statistic to come out of the post-Starlink v0.9 recovery is that B1049.3 took less than 30 hours to go from docking in port to being horizontal on a SpaceX booster transporter. The previous record-holder was Falcon 9 B1046.2, requiring approximately 40 hours for the same feat. B1049.3 also holds the record for fastest recovery overall – just 48 hours from docking to being transported to a SpaceX hangar – but only beat B1051 by about half an hour. In general, Falcon 9 Block 5 has been privy to consistently quick recovery operations and B1049 is just the latest in a long line of reusable SpaceX rockets.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
