News
SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 fleet takes shape as rocket booster production ramps
Per a source involved in SpaceX’s cross-country rocket transport infrastructure, the company continues to beat the expectations of its closest followers, pointing towards an inflection point in the production and testing of new Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket boosters and upper stages.
Building off of a number of Falcon 9 booster, upper stage, and fairing spottings over the past six weeks, it can reasonably be concluded that SpaceX has completed, shipped, tested (i.e. static fires in Texas), and delivered (to launch sites) as many Falcon 9 rockets in six weeks as were shipped, tested, and launched in the preceding five months – perhaps even 30% more.
This extreme production ramp can be attributed almost entirely to the maturation of Falcon 9 Block 5’s design and manufacturing apparatus, owing to the fact that the rocket’s most recent (and theoretically final) upgrade necessitated significant changes to almost every major aspect of the Falcon family. Meanwhile, a considerable amount of time and effort had to be directed towards the optimization and production of the first Falcon Heavy, to some extent an entirely bespoke rocket built off of much older Falcon 9 cores and a center core design unlikely to be repeated.
- Falcon 9 B1047 spotted in Florida just a short trip away from Cape Canaveral, where it will likely launch Telsat 19V in mid-July. (Reddit /u/fatherofzeuss)
- What was likely B1049 spotted heading to McGregor, Texas for static fire testing, June 11. (TeslaMotorsClub /u/nwdiver)
- What has to be B1050 on its way to McGregor for static fire testing, July 6. (anonymous)
With Falcon Heavy completed and launched in February and the last non-Block 5 booster built, launched, and relaunched in the last three months, Falcon 9 Block 5 has for the first time been allowed to become SpaceX’s near-singular focus for manufacturing and testing, both in the Hawthorne factory, the McGregor, TX testing facility, and SpaceX’s three launch pads.
This change in focus likely means that SpaceX was finally able to rid itself of what were effectively multiple SKUs (serial versions) of its workhorse rocket, presumably allowing their supplier and manufacturing apparatus to be significantly streamlined. With low-volume production and limited manufacturing space, multiple SKUs were likely a massive challenge for the Hawthorne factory and the McGregor testing facility, where the stand used to test Falcon 9 boosters likely required significant modifications to support Block 5 static fires. Meanwhile, SpaceX’s three launch pads in Florida and California all needed their own series of upgrades to transfer from Block 4 to Block 5.
- B1047 captured testing in McGregor, Texas, April 2018. (Teslarati/Aero Photo)
- Falcon 9 B1049 spotted on stand in McGregor, TX on June 15.
Regardless, SpaceX has clearly gotten its manufacturing feet back under it and has ever-growing confidence in the nascent Block 5 iteration of Falcon 9. COO and President Gwynne Shotwell noted in a May 2018 CNBC interview that she believed the Hawthorne factory was nominally capable of producing one Merlin engine a day and two Block 5 boosters per month, and this recent burst of activity appears to heartily confirm her estimates. What remains to be seen is if what appears to be a six-week sprint (at least relative to the last year or so of rocket building) will instead prove to be the norm for the second half of 2018 and 2019.
If SpaceX can continue to sustain this extraordinarily rapid-fire pace of rocket production for just the next six months, the company could round out 2018 with a strong start to what Shotwell described would be a “sizable fleet” of Falcon boosters. Block 5 boosters B1047, B1048, and B1049 are now finished with static fire testing in McGregor after shipping from Hawthorne and either at launch sites or on their way, while B1050 most likely just arrived at McGregor for its own static fire. The first successfully launched and recovered Block 5 booster (B1046) was said by CEO Elon Musk to be undergoing a thorough teardown analysis – a process that almost certainly has been completed given the burst of Block 5 shipments and testing – and should be free to support additional launches later this year.
If SpaceX continues to produce nearly two boosters per month, the company could round out 2018 with a fleet of nearly 16 Falcon 9 boosters, each of which has been designed to support anywhere from a handful to a hundred reuses.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
News
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
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.




