News
SpaceX to ring in Crew Dragon’s success with a Starlink launch and landing
SpaceX wants to ring in the historic success of its Crew Dragon spacecraft the only way it knows how – sending 60-satellite Starlink satellites into orbit and landing another Falcon booster as few as three days after the company’s inaugural astronaut launch.
The mission – deemed Starlink-8 – will be SpaceX’s eighth Starlink launch overall and the seventh launch of upgraded v1.0 satellites, pushing the company a mission past the halfway point towards its first internet beta test. If successful, it will raise SpaceX’s ever-growing constellation to some ~475 satellites strong, approximately 400 spacecraft shy of the ~840 COO and President Gwynne Shotwell believes are necessary to begin rolling out Starlink internet service.
Delayed from May 7th to the 17th, 18th, and 19th before SpaceX called the mission off to give Crew Dragon’s inaugural astronaut launch space to breathe, Starlink-8 is now scheduled to launch no earlier than 9:25 pm EDT on June 3rd (02:25 UTC, 4 June). Aside from taking SpaceX another step towards an operational Starlink constellation and source of income independent of launches, the launch is also on track to mark several more critical milestones both in orbit and back on (or near) the ground.
By far the most notable (and unexpected) first of Starlink-8 is related to booster recovery plans. On May 30th, the very same day SpaceX performed its first astronaut launch, drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) was spotted heading out into the Atlantic Ocean, deck cleared for the first time in the better part of a year. While initially assumed to be another one of a few sea trials the radically upgraded drone ship has performed in the last few weeks, news broke hours later that JRTI was actually heading out to sea for its first rocket recovery attempt in more than 16 months.
Replacing SpaceX’s original East Coast-based drone ship of the same name, the current iteration of Just Read The Instructions debuted in the Pacific Ocean in January 2016 with an explosively-unsuccessful booster landing after launching the Jason-3 weather satellite. The ship’s next landing attempt would come one year later and kick of seven consecutive booster landings completed over the following 24 months, followed shortly by a temporary pause of SpaceX’s West Coast launch presence.
SpaceX intends to perform its limited manifest of future Californian launches while relying entirely on return-to-launch-site (RTLS) rocket booster recoveries back onshore, freeing up drone ship JRTI to head to Florida to support the company’s far busier East Coast manifest. After transiting the Panama Canal in August 2019 and undergoing several months of refits in Louisiana, JRTI arrived in Florida in December 2019 and has been gradually upgraded at Port Canaveral over the last few months. Now, outfitted with a new Octagrabber robot and thrusters and power supplies that dwarf those on SpaceX’s other drone ship, SpaceX has apparently given JRTI the go-ahead to attempt its first booster recovery in almost a year and a half.
Visors, reuse, rideshares and more
Additionally, Starlink-8 is scheduled to debut SpaceX’s first “VisorSat”, a Starlink satellite modified with a visor specifically designed to prevent sunlight from reflecting off of the shiny satellites and disrupting ground-based astronomy. If successful, all future Starlink satellites SpaceX manufactures will include the modification, hopefully mitigating or wholly eliminating Starlink’s impact on astronomy.
Starlink-8 is also expected to debut SpaceX’s potentially game-changing addition of rideshare slots for small satellites aboard a large portion of the company’s planned Starlink launches. Earth imaging company Planet is the first announced customer, with three ~125 kg (~300 lb) SkySat imaging satellites manifested on Starlink-8. Potentially costing Planet just $1 million apiece, the launch option could easily become industry-leading if SpaceX can regularly include several hundred kilograms of 3rd-party satellites on each of the 20+ Starlink missions it’s likely to launch annually.
Finally, Next Spaceflight says that Falcon 9 booster B1049 has been assigned to support Starlink-8, meaning that the mission will be the second time ever that a Falcon 9 booster has attempted its fifth orbital-class launch. Starlink-8 will come two and a half months after improper refurbishment caused Falcon 9 booster B1048 to suffer an in-flight engine failure during its fifth launch. While the booster changed its flight program on the fly to ensure the Starlink-6 mission was successfully completed, B1048 did so at the cost of its landing propellant, ending the booster’s productive life with a violent crash somewhere on the surface of the Atlantic Ocean.
If B1049 can successfully launch and land for the fifth time on June 3rd, it will become the pack leader of SpaceX’s fleet of reusable rockets. With a safe landing, B1049 can prepare to become the first booster to launch six times, hopefully proving that Falcon 9 can safely fly six, seven, eight, or more times – perhaps one day cresting 10 launches to achieve Falcon 9 Block 5’s design goal.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
