News
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
With plans to give the historic rocket its own place on display inside the company’s Hawthorne factory, SpaceX has refurbished the last remaining Falcon 1 rocket booster and an old Merlin 1C engine to create a model representative of the same Falcon 1 that saved SpaceX and made history on September 28th, 2008, becoming the first privately-developed liquid-fuel rocket to reach Earth orbit.
In the process of celebrating the tenth anniversary of that crowning achievement, one is reminded just how meteoric SpaceX’s rise has been over the course of that decade, marked by relentless progress with Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Cargo Dragon, Crew Dragon, and even the early phases of BFR construction.
https://twitter.com/SpaceXJobs/status/1045832573471969281
On that September afternoon ten years ago, SpaceX may well have saved itself from extinction. Running on funding fumes, CEO and founder Elon Musk has long held that the company would have been forced to effectively cease activity and disband after six years of work and three consecutive Falcon 1 failures had drained almost all of the $100 million he had dedicated in 2002.
Reaching orbit is undoubtedly one of the most technologically challenging feats there is and SpaceX’s merciless failures drove that reality home, ranging from a burst propellant line on the first stage Merlin, liquid propellant sloshing problems on the second stage, and overperformance on the first stage engine causing the two stages to impact after separation, among myriad other problems faced outside of actual launch attempts. Thankfully, thanks to the extraordinary group of several hundred early employees that fixed those problems and pushed onwards, Falcon 1’s fourth attempt was almost flawless and successfully placed a boilerplate mass simulator into a roughly circular ~650km orbit.
-
- Falcon 1 Flight 4 seen shortly after liftoff from SpaceX’s Kwaj Atoll island pad. (SpaceX)
-
- Earlier this summer, /r/SpaceX member MarsOrBust101 was lucky enough to spot an old Falcon 1 – long sat at one of SpaceX’s several junkyards – being transferred to its Hawthorne factory. (Reddit /u/MarsOrBust101)
-
- It’s impossible to know for sure, but that hardware was almost certainly SpaceX’s first Falcon 1 recovery test article in a previous life. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX has restored the last remaining Falcon 1 structures into a display model. The small, unassuming rocket was showcased in front of the company’s Hawthorne factory on September 28th. (Pauline Acalin)
A bit more than nine months later, SpaceX completed the first and last operational launch of Falcon 1, retired to allow the company to focus fully on Falcon 5 (cancelled a few years later), Falcon 9, and Cargo Dragon. Eleven months after that July 2009 mission, SpaceX successfully launched Falcon 9 for the first time and followed it up with the first launch of a functioning Cargo Dragon spacecraft, which spent several hours testing systems in orbit before reentering Earth’s atmosphere and landing in the Pacific Ocean. Two years later in 2012, SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon became the first commercial spacecraft in history to dock with the International Space Station, with operational NASA Commercial Resupply Services launches beginning just six months after.
With three years and five successful launches under its belt, Falcon 9 v1.0 was retired and made way for the first of many upgraded Falcon 9 variants, known as Falcon 9 v1.1, featuring 60% greater thrust and mass at liftoff, a new octaweb layout for its nine new Merlin 1D engines, and a range of structural changes that set the stage for future attempts at booster recovery. Two and a half years after Falcon 9 v1.1’s debut and a little over five years since the first successful launch of Falcon 1, SpaceX accomplished the first successful landing of a Falcon 9’s first stage, and that booster now stands proudly outside of the company’s Hawthorne, CA headquarters.
To mark that 10th anniversary, SpaceX apparently decided to salvage a mothballed Falcon 1 stored in a junkyard, refurbishing it into something closer to its former self. Although just the first stage and a Merlin 1C engine were present, the company stationed the refurbished Falcon 1 in front the first recovered Falcon 9 booster and gave all employees an opportunity to see the duo over the course of September 28th.
-
- Roughly a third of the SpaceX employees present for the company’s Falcon 1 Flight 4 success still remain. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon 9 and Falcon 1. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s first successful Falcon 9 landing. Booster B1019 now stands in front of SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy successfully clears the tower after its maiden launch, February 6, 2018. (Tom Cross)
The sheer size differential is undeniably impressive. However, a more gobsmacking statistic can be found still. Falcon 1 stands roughly 22 meters tall and would weigh around 39,000 kilograms with a full load of liquid oxygen and kerosene. While the Falcon family’s current payload fairing isn’t nearly tall enough to squeeze in a full Falcon 1 first stage, Falcon Heavy could easily place a fully-loaded Falcon 1 into Low Earth Orbit and still recovery all three of its first stage boosters.
In other words, SpaceX went from launching the first commercial liquid-fuel rocket to reach orbit to launching a super-heavy rocket that could put that entire first rocket into orbit in less than ten years. Not too shabby.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
