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.
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
