News
SpaceX drone ship dodges high seas en route to first rocket landing of 2020
SpaceX has delayed the first orbital launch of the new year by a handful of days to allow both Falcon 9 and the drone ship it’s scheduled to land on the opportunity to dodge bad weather on the Florida coast and out in the Atlantic Ocean.
Originally scheduled to launch no earlier than December 30th, SpaceX delayed its next mission – Starlink-2 – to January 3rd for unknown reasons. Weather on the new date was unfortunately forecast to be terrible at SpaceX’s LC-40 launch pad and had a 60% chance of scrubbing the mission. SpaceX must have been at least as concerned about conditions for drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) in the Atlantic Ocean, as the company ultimately skipped over a 90%-GO backup window on January 4th for the latest launch target – January 6th.
Historically, only a few Falcon launches have been delayed for booster recovery purposes, but it’s been apparent that – while incredibly sturdy – some of the tacked-on equipment installed on SpaceX’s drone ships (modified barges) can be easily damaged by high seas. Perhaps more importantly, high seas (and thus a pitching drone ship deck) can make booster landings much riskier. Bad luck could easily cause a booster to cut off its landing burn at exactly sea level but still be a dozen or more feet above the drone ship’s deck if it’s coincidentally in the trough of a big swell, potentially destroying or damaging the rocket.
Ultimately, on missions where SpaceX has nothing to lose by delaying the launch, the company now puts a successful booster recovery much higher on its list of priorities. As recently as March 2018, SpaceX intentionally expended a new Falcon 9 booster because ocean conditions would have been extremely risky to OCISLY and crew and the company (or customer) had no interest in delaying the launch further to wait for calmer seas.
By all appearances, that is – for the most part – no longer the case. SpaceX would likely expend a rocket for a few days of schedule for high-priority customers like the USAF and especially NASA, where even a few days of delays could trigger several years of delays to quite literally wait for the planets to realign. It has and will continue to require a significant culture shift in the market for launch but SpaceX is clearly changing those norms and expectations bit by bit, to the point that the company was recently willing to delay Cargo Dragon launches for NASA to ensure that the mission’s Falcon 9 booster the best possible chance of recovery.
For an internal Starlink launch, delaying the mission to prevent drone ship damage and ensure Falcon 9 recovery is thus an absolute no-brainer. Starlink-2 is also partially unique because it will mark the second time a Falcon 9 booster launches for the fourth time, following on the footsteps of B1048 after it became the first booster to launch four times during SpaceX’s November 2019 Starlink-1 mission.
B1048 thus became SpaceX’s lone pathfinder for Falcon 9 booster reusability, hopefully providing excellent insight and some unequivocal physical data to determine the rocket’s health and readiness for a 5th launch. Still, even though the sample sizes available to even the most prolific orbital launch vehicles would make any statistician cringe, it’s safe to say that two data points are better than one, and B1049 – scheduled to launch for the fourth time on Starlink-2 – would thus be quite valuable to SpaceX’s recovery engineers and technicians.
Only one additional Falcon 9 booster – B1056 – has already flown three missions, meaning that SpaceX will – at best – likely have to suffice with three data points (B1048, B1049, B1056) before moving onto the next reusability milestone – launching the same booster five times. Ultimately, every time SpaceX pushes that envelope and demonstrates that Falcon boosters can be definitively reused 3 or 4 or 5 times, the company multiplies the number of launches its fleet of booster can perform by a factor of two.
For, say, the eight flightworthy boosters in SpaceX’s existing fleet, proving that a 4th reuse is possible will ultimately allow the company to squeeze an additional seven launches from existing hardware with almost zero capital investment. For now, the fourth flight of Falcon 9 boosters will remain cutting edge, but with more than three-dozen launches planned in 2020, it’s all but guaranteed that SpaceX will push the envelope of reusability like never before in the coming months.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
