News
SpaceX continues water landing test in latest Space Station resupply mission
SpaceX has completed their second launch in less than four days, and the company’s 14th Cargo Dragon mission has successfully made it to a safe parking orbit where it will make its way to the International Space Station over the next two days.
Carrying nearly 5,800 pounds of perishables, experiments, and scientific equipment to be bolted to the outside of the ISS, this particular Cargo Dragon flew once before in 2016, while the booster that lifted it above Earth’s thin atmosphere was tasked with launching CRS-12 in August 2017. According to Jessica Jensen, SpaceX’s Director of Dragon Mission Management, this particularly Dragon capsule was the first to fly with upgraded water sealing, meaning that it was considerably easier (and thus cheaper) for SpaceX to refurbish and refly. The only items that had to be replaced this time around were the heatshield, trunk, and parachutes, and this experience will undoubtedly translate into Dragon 2 (Cargo Dragon), likely ensuring exceptional reuse characteristics for that the company’s next-gen capsule.
- CRS-8 also happened to mark the first successful ASDS recovery of a Falcon 9 booster. (SpaceX)
- Booster 1039 lands after successfully launching CRS-12’s Cargo Dragon into orbit. 1039 completed its final mission on Monday afternoon, April 2. (SpaceX)
Sadly, CRS-14’s doubly flight-proven launch also marked yet another expended booster – B1039 happened to be the first Block 4 version of Falcon 9’s stage to fly a mission. Jensen described that SpaceX – accustomed to making these decisions on a case-by-case basis – had chosen to expend this particular booster after concluding that the benefits of testing extreme booster trajectories and recovery profiles outweighed the difficulty (and cost) of refurbishing a Block 4 booster for a third launch. In this case, B1039 would have been the best option if SpaceX had any desire to fly a booster more than twice before the introduction of the purpose-driven, next-generation Block 5 reusability upgrade – Block 4 was clearly not built to fly more than twice without an uneconomical amount of refurbishment.
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/980912458280947722
While no specific details were given and live coverage shown of the soft-landing, it’s presumed that B1039 continued in the footsteps of water landings that followed GovSat-1 and Hispasat 30W-6 in January 2018 and March 2018. These uniquely aggressive landing attempts are all believed to have ignited three Merlin 1D engines rather than the single engine typically ignited for landing burns, providing a more efficient use of propellant reserves at the cost of extreme acceleration (G) forces and far slimmer margins of error. The ultimate promise of these tests, if successful, is to allow SpaceX the option of recovering boosters during missions with heavier payloads and higher orbits.

SpaceX continues a cautious regiment of tests for the newest Falcon 9 upgrade, Block 5. (Reddit /u/HollywoodSX)
The imminent NET April 24 inaugural launch of SpaceX’s rapid reuse Falcon 9 “Block 5” will mark the beginning of a new era of rocketry for SpaceX, where expendable missions are likely to become a rarity. Expending a single Block 5 booster could fairly be perceived as throwing away the potential revenue and income from anywhere from 5-100 future re-flights. As such, SpaceX has every reason to expend non-Block 5 boosters with the hope of ensuring that fewer new-generation rockets end up expended after launch.
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore. pic.twitter.com/hipmgdnq16
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 31, 2018
Intriguingly, Jensen also noted in a prelaunch briefing that SpaceX’s Cargo Dragons are certified for as many as three orbital reuses – a possibility as SpaceX steps towards completing all 20 of its contracted CRS-1 missions, the final five of which are scheduled to resupply the ISS between now and early 2020. After the final CRS-1 launch, NASA has already awarded SpaceX and Orbital ATK contracts for CRS-2, a second Commercial Resupply Services contract that will begin in 2020 and fly on OATK’s upgraded Cygnus and SpaceX Dragon 2, potentially repurposing recovered Crew capsules in the case of SpaceX.
Up next on the SpaceX calendar are a number of conferences and presentations over the next two or three weeks, followed by SpaceX NASA TESS mission on April 16 and the debut of Falcon 9 Block 5 for the launch of Bangabandhu-1, April 24. SES-12 may be launched sometime in early May or late April, and the next West coast launch of Iridium-6/GRACE-FO is expected to occur NET May 10.
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- SpaceX technicians work at the base of Falcon 9 B1039 ahead of launch, CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
- CRS-14. (Tom Cross)
Follow us for live updates, behind-the-scenes sneak peeks, and a sea of beautiful photos from our 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.











