News
SpaceX grapples with failed Falcon 9 landing as Starlink launches slip
The follow-on effects of SpaceX’s failed February 15th booster landing have begun to roll in, triggering at least one to two weeks of delays for several upcoming Starlink launches.
Already delayed a few days and leapfrogging an even more beleaguered Starlink-17 launch originally scheduled as far back as late January, SpaceX Falcon 9 booster B1059 lifted off for the sixth time without issue last Monday. The rocket seemed to perform fine, separating as planned around 150 seconds after launch and leaving Falcon 9’s expendable upper stage to continue on its way to orbit with a ~16-ton (~35,000 lb) batch of 60 Starlink satellites.
During B1059’s “reentry burn,” a period where Falcon boosters reignite three of their Merlin 1D engines to both slow down and create a sort of shield with the rocket exhaust that burn produces, something went wrong. Unusual sparks quite literally flew during and after the last few seconds of the burn and the bright flare produced by Falcon 9’s engines dissipated far slower than usual. Eventually, when B1059 was expected to fire up for one final landing burn, all that was visible from a live camera on SpaceX’s drone ship was two flashes of warm light.
It’s hard to say for sure without an official comment from SpaceX but those flashes may have been the drone ship camera capturing the mid-air breakup and fast-fire (or explosion) of the Falcon 9 booster some 20-30 seconds before a planned soft landing. The odd behavior observed during and after the reentry burn could have also indicated a partial loss of thrust in one or more of B1059’s three reentry engines.
Unofficial analysis of the telemetry data included in SpaceX’s public webcasts more or less aligns with that theory, suggesting that Falcon 9 B1059 reentry burn lasted a nominal duration but didn’t slow the rocket down as much as it should have. As a result, B1059 would have been traveling faster and at a lower altitude relative to a nominal Starlink mission, which is exactly what’s observed in a comparison between Starlink-18 and Starlink-19, virtually identical launches completed 11 days apart.
That same telemetry also suggests that Falcon 9 B1059 may have lost thrust before its first burn completed, possibly explaining why the timing of launch events on SpaceX’s webcast and an official SpaceX.com launch timeline began to drastically diverge after MECO. MECO itself occurred about five seconds behind that schedule, gradually ballooning to a difference of more than half a minute for Starlink satellite deployment an hour after launch.
That observation increases the similarity between Starlink-5 and Starlink-19, both of which seemingly suffered a boost phase anomaly, off-nominal reentry burn performance, and booster loss well before landing. SpaceX’s Starlink-5 engine-out anomaly and failed booster landing grounded the company for about five weeks before it eventually returned to flight on April 22nd, 2020.
SpaceX appears to be working to mitigate the impact from Starlink-19 but a delay of at least 1-2 weeks is in order based on current schedules. Perhaps the most chronically delayed SpaceX launch of all time, Starlink-17 – originally scheduled to fly as early as “Jan. 29, Jan. 30, Jan. 31, Feb. 1, Feb. 2, Feb. 4, Feb. 5, Feb. 7, Feb. 17,” and Feb. 25 – is now on the calendar for no earlier than (NET) February 28th. Starlink-20, planned to launch in the last week of February, has been tentatively pushed to no earlier than March 7th. Both dates are assuredly subject – and likely – to change as SpaceX works to close out its Starlink-19 anomaly investigation and implement any necessary changes.
News
Ford embraces Tesla-style gigacastings and Cybertruck’s 48V architecture
Ford Motor Company’s next-generation electric vehicles will adopt technologies that were first commercialized by the Tesla Cybertruck.
Ford Motor Company’s next-generation electric vehicles will adopt technologies that were first commercialized by the Tesla Cybertruck, such as the brutalist all-electric pickup’s 48-volt electrical architecture and its gigacastings.
The shift is expected to start with a roughly $30,000 small electric pickup that is expected to be released in 2027, which is part of Ford’s $5 billion investment in its new Universal EV platform, as noted in a CNBC report.
Ford confirmed that its upcoming EV platform will move away from the traditional 12-volt system long used across the auto industry. Instead, it will implement a 48-volt electrical architecture that draws power directly from the vehicle’s high-voltage battery.
Tesla was the first automaker to bring a 48-volt system to U.S. consumers with the Cybertruck in 2023. The architecture reduces wiring bulk, lowers weight, and improves electrical efficiency. It also allows power to be stepped down to 12 volts through new electronic control units when needed.
Alan Clarke, Ford’s executive director of advanced EV development and a former Tesla engineer, called 48-volt systems “the future of automotive” due to their lower costs and smaller wiring requirements. Ford stated that the wiring harness in its new pickup will be more than 4,000 feet shorter and 22 pounds lighter than that of its first-generation electric SUV.
Apart from the Cybertruck’s 48-volt architecture, Ford is also embracing Tesla-style gigacastings for its next-generation EVs. Ford stated that its upcoming electric vehicle will use just two major structural front and rear castings, compared with 146 comparable components in the current gas-powered Maverick.
Ford CEO Jim Farley has described the effort as a “bet” and a “Model T moment” for the company, arguing that system-level innovation is necessary to lower costs and compete globally. “At Ford, we took on the challenge many others have stopped doing. We’re taking the fight to our competition, including the Chinese,” Farley previously stated.
Energy
Tesla meets Giga New York’s Buffalo job target amid political pressures
Giga New York reported more than 3,460 statewide jobs at the end of 2025, meeting the benchmark tied to its dollar-a-year lease.
Tesla has surpassed its job commitments at Giga New York in Buffalo, easing pressure from lawmakers who threatened the company with fines, subsidy clawbacks, and dealership license revocations last year.
The company reported more than 3,460 statewide jobs at the end of 2025, meeting the benchmark tied to its dollar-a-year lease at the state-built facility.
As per an employment report reviewed by local media, Tesla employed 2,399 full-time workers at Gigafactory New York and 1,060 additional employees across the state at the end of 2025. Part-time roles pushed the total headcount of Tesla’s New York staff above the 3,460-job target.
The gains stemmed in part from a new Long Island service center, a Buffalo warehouse, and additional showrooms in White Plains and Staten Island. Tesla also said it has invested $350 million in supercomputing infrastructure at the site and has begun manufacturing solar panels.
Empire State Development CEO Hope Knight said the agency was “very happy” with Giga New York’s progress, as noted in a WXXI report. The current lease runs through 2029, and negotiations over updated terms have included potential adjustments to job requirements and future rent payments.
Some lawmakers remain skeptical, however. Assemblymember Pat Burke questioned whether the reported job figures have been fully verified. State Sen. Patricia Fahy has also continued to sponsor legislation that would revoke Tesla’s company-owned dealership licenses in New York. John Kaehny of Reinvent Albany has argued that the project has not delivered the manufacturing impact originally promised as well.
Knight, for her part, maintained that Empire State Development has been making the best of a difficult situation.
“(Empire State Development) has tried to make the best of a very difficult situation. There hasn’t been another use that has come forward that would replace this one, and so to the extent that we’re in this place, the fact that 2,000 families at (Giga New York) are being supported through the activity of this employer. It’s the best that we can have happen,” the CEO noted.
News
Tesla avoids California sales suspension after DMV review
The agency confirmed Tuesday that Tesla has taken “corrective action.”
Tesla will not face a 30-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) stated that the company has come into compliance regarding the marketing of its automated-driving features.
The agency confirmed Tuesday that Tesla has taken “corrective action” following a prior ruling over how it promoted Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD), as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
The California DMV had previously given Tesla 90 days to address concerns that were raised by an administrative judge. Regulators had alleged that Tesla overstated the capabilities of its driver-assist systems, which were branded as Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
A potential 30-day suspension of vehicle sales in California was on the table if Tesla had failed to comply. On Tuesday, however, the DMV stated that Tesla had met the requirements to avoid that penalty, though it did not provide detailed specifics about the changes that were made.
That being said, Tesla did discontinue its standalone Autopilot product in January and has ramped the marketing of its most advanced driver-assistance package available to consumers today, Full Self Driving (Supervised). From its naming, FSD (Supervised) clearly emphasizes that the system, despite its advanced features, still requires driver attention.
Following reports of a potential sales ban in California, Tesla clarified the matter on X, stating that the issue “was a ‘consumer protection’ order about the use of the term ‘Autopilot’ in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.” Tesla also noted that “Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has not issued a comment about the matter as of writing.
Ford embraces Tesla-style gigacastings and Cybertruck’s 48V architecture
Tesla meets Giga New York’s Buffalo job target amid political pressures
