Connect with us
60 hours after docking, B1046 was loaded horizontally onto its transporter. (Tom Cross) 60 hours after docking, B1046 was loaded horizontally onto its transporter. (Tom Cross)

News

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket looks no worse for wear after dual launches

Published

on

SpaceX’s first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster has returned to Port Canaveral, FL once again after the rocket’s second successful launch, likely the first of countless reuses to come over the next months and years. Of note, B1046.2 (Booster 1046, flight 2) was by all appearances in as good of condition as it was when it lifted off from Pad 40 just three days prior.

While it may be difficult to immediately distinguish between B1046’s second launch and recovery and those of previous, older Falcon 9 boosters, Block 5 is a quite simply an entirely different story. Moreover, the fact that SpaceX went from the major upgrade’s launch debut to first booster reflight in barely three months is an extraordinarily good indication that Block 5’s first flightworthy design (especially the parts not visible to the public) is very close to its engineers’ theoretical intentions.

Advertisement

Falcon 9 B1046’s second recovery also happened to be the quickest yet for SpaceX by a healthy margin, taking just 4.5 days to travel 400 miles back to port, be lifted off drone ship Of Course I Still Love You, have its legs removed, and be loaded horizontally onto SpaceX’s dedicated Cape Canaveral booster transporter. Whether or not the rocket itself is ready for another flight with absolutely zero refurbishing in between, this demonstration of just how quickly SpaceX’s infrastructure can operate indicates that much of the framework needed for truly rapid reuse is already largely in place.

Once SpaceX is confident that Block 5 can be reflown with little more than new fuel added and has lined up multiple payloads for launch in just a few days or weeks, it’s clear that the company will already have the ability to launch (and reuse rockets) so quickly that drone ship availability will become the primary bottleneck. For example, if B1046 could have shipped to one of SpaceX’s launch sites moments after it was loaded on its transporter and prepped for the second launch within 24-48 hours of going horizontal, it’s extremely unlikely that OCISLY could be readied for another booster recovery and towed several hundred miles off the coast in time to catch B1046 after its third launch.

 

As such, barring the extremely rapid completion of SpaceX’s third drone ship (named A Shortfall of Gravitas), it can be all but guaranteed that SpaceX will need to use its land-based Landing Zone 1 to accomplish CEO Elon Musk’s challenge of launching, landing, and relaunching the same Falcon 9 booster in less than 24 hours sometime before the end of 2019. Even then, it seems likely that SpaceX would either need to dramatically improve the turnaround capabilities of one of its launch sites or conduct those back-to-back launches using both of the company’s two Florida pads (LC-39A and LC-40).

Advertisement

Regardless, the first reuse of a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster unequivocally marks the beginning of a new era for SpaceX and for orbital rocketry worldwide. According to one of SpaceX’s webcast hosts during the second flight of B1046 (for the launch of Telkom 4/Merah Putih), the rocket’s third launch (a first for SpaceX) is already in planning for an unspecified mission later this year. As SpaceX rockets begin to rack up 3, 5, 10, or more launches apiece and the act of reusing Falcon 9s becomes so routine that it bores all but the most ardent followers, you’ll know that SpaceX has essentially succeeded in the first step of its master plan. Next stop: BFR and Mars.


For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

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 denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.

The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.

One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.

These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.

To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.

At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.

Advertisement

Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line

By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.

The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.

Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Advertisement

It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.

The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.

In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.

Advertisement
Continue Reading