News
SpaceX competitor Blue Origin touts 25-reuse future rocket as R&D continues
A spokesperson for Blue Origin, the reusable rocket company funded by Jeff Bezos and one of the only serious prospective SpaceX competitors, reiterated an oft-used claim that its orbital New Glenn rocket has been designed with reusability in mind “from the start” and stated that the vehicle’s booster is expected to fly 25 times, while its BE-4 engines can expect to see as many as 100 reuses.
Ariane Cornell, Blue Origin’s head of business development and strategy, provided her comments as part of a satellite and rocket hardware panel at the Hong Kong-hosted CASBAA 2018 conference, mainly focused on major participants in the Asian satellite broadcasting industry, for which SpaceX has launched a number of satellites with several more soon to come.
Correction from Ariane: New Glenn first stage can do 25 missions, BE-4 engines designed for 100 flights each.
— Caleb Henry (@ChenrySpace) June 25, 2018
While scarcely anything has changed in the last 12 months, that in itself is hugely noteworthy – SpaceX remains almost completely unchallenged in the space launch industry, at least in terms of investing in R&D for the purpose of dramatically decreasing the cost of orbital launches. While they have yet to dramatically cut the customer-side prices of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, it’s all but guaranteed that the sustainable ability to do so is not only already in place but improving day by day. Every flight-proven SpaceX launch completed even before Falcon 9 Block 5’s takeover likely provides as much as tens of millions of dollars for the company to either reinvest or recoup investments in reusability and Falcon Heavy, among other things.
- Blue Origin has had some success with its New Shepard suborbital rocket reuse program, although dramatically different from New Glenn. (NASA)
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
- BE-4, an extraordinarily powerful 500k lb thrust methane/oxygen rocket engine, is roughly midway through a ground testing program, likely to reach completion in 2019. (Blue Origin)
- Blue is in the process of constructing an entirely new launch site for New Glenn at Kennedy Space Center, known as LC-36. (Blue Origin)
As of today, Blue Origin is quite simply the only rocket company with demonstrated successes, resources, and commitment to serious operationally-reusable rockets – while Blue has yet to reach orbit, commercial launch stalwarts ULA, Arianespace, and ILS have functionally buried their heads in the sand and either have no plans at all or plan flying even their tepid, disinterested steps into reusable rocket hardware by the mid-2020s at the absolute earliest. SpaceX, on the other hand, has already launched its first purpose-built reusable rocket – Falcon 9 Block 5 – and has two or three more completed boosters either at their launch sites or nearing shipment, with many more being prepared in their Hawthorne, CA factory. In fact, SpaceX’s final non-Block 5 mission is in less than four days (June 29), after which all future launches will be transferred to Block 5 rockets.
All future SpaceX missions will be conducted with highly reusable rocket boosters in the middle of 2018, whereas SpaceX’s current operational competitors are essentially not even trying to field competitive reusable rocket hardware on operational launches before 2024 or 2025. Blue Origin, on the other hand, still appears to be committed to completing the development of its huge, reusable New Glenn rocket, an orbital launch vehicle currently aiming for a debut launch sometime in late 2020. While still late to the start of the SpaceX-fueled reusable launch revolution, commercial launches with reusable hardware beginning as early as 2020-2021 bodes extremely well for Blue’s ability to actually carve out a sturdy segment of the market, while also giving SpaceX at least a decent hint of external motivation to remain competitive.
- China’s reusable rocket goals aim to fly small prototypes as early as 2020, with the ultimate goal of making all Chinese rockets reusable by 2035. (Sina Weibo & Spaceflightfans)
- The scale of BE-4 is demonstrated well in this Kent, WA factory photo. (Blue Origin)
- SpaceX’s first successfully launched and landed Block 5 Falcon 9, May 2018. (Tom Cross)
Aside from Blue Origin and a respectable effort from China, also aiming for initial reusable launch vehicle testing in 2020 (albeit beginning with a conservative – but still orbital – subscale prototype), all other commercial launch competitors are effectively betting their livelihoods on the failures non-traditional launch providers like SpaceX, betting that reusable rockets fail to appreciably lower costs to customers over the better part of the next decade. SpaceX, meanwhile, will begin putting those bets to the test in as few as three weeks.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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.
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.
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.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
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.
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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
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.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
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.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.






