SpaceX
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 head to Pad 39A for historic launch debut
NASA has confirmed that a Feb. 27th launch readiness review (LRR) prior to the orbital debut of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft concluded with all parties remaining “go” for the historic launch.
Scheduled to liftoff at 2:48 am EST (07:48 UTC) on March 2nd, Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon can now begin to roll out to Launch Complex 39A (‘Pad 39A’) and complete final preflight checks approximately 24-48 hours before launch. After relentless work over the last few months, SpaceX has also largely completed a significant series of changes – many aesthetic – to Pad 39A, giving the historic complex a sleek new black and white paint scheme and enclosed tower (FSS).
And there's the confirmation the LRR was completed and with a GO. Rollout is next. Expect lots of cool photos especially with the 39A FSS now fully "cladded" compared to the photo in the tweet during the Static Fire test. https://t.co/SQHcd3Ahgo
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) February 28, 2019
Falcon 9, Crew Dragon “go” for launch
Following up the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) five days later, the completion of the Launch Readiness Review (LRR) effectively means that SpaceX can now proceed into launch operations a bit like any other mission, rolling the rocket and spacecraft out to Pad 39A, taking the assembly vertical, and finally completing (relatively) routine preflight preparations. SpaceX pad engineers and technicians have already completed a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire test over the last two months, meaning that they have already gained a significant amount of real-world experience working with and operating the brand new Crew Dragon spacecraft and its human-rated Falcon 9 rocket.
This milestone has been the better part of a decade in the making, beginning in 2009 or 2010 (depending on definitions) with funding from NASA dedicated to what would ultimately become the Commercial Crew Program (CCP). SpaceX did not begin to receive rewards or dedicated Crew Dragon-related funding until April 2011, when NASA awarded the company $75M to develop the spacecraft’s proposed integral abort system, relying on a newly developed Super Draco engine. In August 2012, NASA awarded Sierra Nevada, SpaceX, and Boeing several hundred million dollars each to continue serious development of their respective crewed spacecraft and launch vehicles, followed in 2014 by firm long-term contracts with SpaceX and Boeing to bring their Crew Dragon and Starliner vehicles to fruition.
- The integrated DM-1 Crew Dragon ‘stack’ rolled out to Pad 39A for the first time in the first few days of 2019. (SpaceX)
- Crew Dragon and its crew-rated Falcon 9 went vertical at a launch pad (Pad 39A) for the first time ever on January 4th. (SpaceX)
- Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 B1051 stand vertical at Pad 39A during preparations for a late January static fire test. (SpaceX)
- SpaceX completed a successful static fire of the first Falcon 9 rated for human flight on January 24th. (SpaceX)
- An official SpaceX render shows Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon lifting off from Pad 39A. (SpaceX)
Of note, SpaceX’s contract was valued at $2.6B, while Boeing received $4.2B, a full 60% more to complete an effectively identical task. Sadly, the US Congress systematically underfunded CCP during its formative years, largely a consequence of entrenched political and financial interests in preferentially funding NASA’s own SLS rocket and crewed Orion spacecraft above and at the cost of other rocket and spacecraft development initiatives. Insufficient funding likely contributed heavily to the years of delays subsequently suffered by the program and its commercial providers, pushing a nominal launch debut target from 2015 to 2017 before ultimately moving to 2018 and finally 2019, largely a result of unsurprising technical challenges faced by each provider as they entered into hardware- and testing-rich phases of development.
After approximately 5-6 years of concerted work, SpaceX and NASA are now as ready as they’ll ever be to conduct the first orbital launch of the Commercial Crew Program, to be followed as early as by Boeing’s own uncrewed orbital demonstration of its Starliner spacecraft. For those that have followed CCP for even part of its years-long saga, it’s more than a little surreal to be faced with the reality that such a milestone is barely two days distant.
Pad 39A: more than just a fresh coat
Meanwhile, SpaceX’s leased Pad 39A launch complex has undergone its own significant changes. Dating back to NASA’s Apollo Program, Pad 39A supported all but one of Saturn V’s 13 launches and more than 80 Space Shuttle launches before SpaceX took over the pad in 2014. In the five years the company has leased the facility, a range of changes have been made to the pad’s hardware, support facilities, and the primary metalwork known as service structures, one fixed (FSS) and one rolling (RSS). Aside from a bare skeleton of the RSS hinge, SpaceX has completely removed several hundred tons of Shuttle support hardware, while the FSS (the skyscraper-like rectangular tower) has remained largely unchanged, aside from the installation of a new level and Crew Dragon’s Crew Access Arm (CAA) on the ~110m (350 ft) tower.
- Space Shuttle Atlantis prepares for STS-129’s Pad 39A launch, November 2009. (NASA/Bill Ingalls)
- 39A is seen here on February 11th, 2009 from a very similar angle to the 2009 photo of Shuttle Atlantis. (Tom Cross)
- Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon vertical at Pad 39A. (SpaceX)
- SpaceX technicians work on the tower and access arm, Feb. 11. (Tom Cross)
Most recently, the company has pursued a series of visually distinct changes to tower, painting it almost entirely black with white highlights and installing partially transparent black plexiglass panels along the full length of at least 2-3 of its four walls. While the paint color is almost certainly aesthetically motivated (it matches Falcon 9, Crew Dragon, and the access arm), the decision to enclose all or most of the FSS will likely be very well received the astronauts and technicians it will ultimately support, especially if SpaceX manages to keep out Florida’s notorious mosquitoes.
If SpaceX’s uncrewed DM-1 Crew Dragon demonstration is a success, the company could follow it up with Crew Dragon’s first launch with astronauts aboard as early as July 2019, officially returning 39A to active place in human spaceflight and marking the end of more than eight years spent without a domestic solution for transporting US astronauts into orbit.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Elon Musk
SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
Elon Musk
OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership
OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.
In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.
That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.
SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.
Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.
Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.








