Connect with us

News

SpaceX Falcon 9 Block 5 booster ends launch #2 with spectacular dawn return

Falcon 9 B1049 returned to Port of Los Angeles after its second successful launch and landing in four months. (Pauline Acalin)

Published

on

SpaceX Falcon 9 booster B1049 has completed its second successful launch and landing with a spectacular dawn return to Port of Los Angeles, where engineers and technicians will work to remove the rocket’s grid fins and landing legs and prepare the vehicle for transport to the company’s Hawthorne, CA factory and refurbishment facilities.

Once post-recovery processing is complete and B1049 is safe and snug inside one of SpaceX’s refurbishment facilities, the booster can be expected to be ready to perform its next (third) orbital-class mission perhaps just 2-3 months from now, whether or not there is a mission that needs its support.

Advertisement

Just ~48 hours after the Block 5 booster’s second successful launch and landing, this time aboard drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) after supporting the historic Iridium-8 mission, JRTI pulled into Port of Los Angeles with Falcon 9 in tow, backlit by a picturesque California sunrise. In September 2018, the same booster (B1049) successfully completed its launch debut from SpaceX’s LC-40 launch pad in Cape Canaveral, Florida before landing safely aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY).

This marks the second time ever that a Falcon 9 booster has launched from both coasts (Cape Canaveral, FL and Vandenberg, CA) and landed on both SpaceX drone ships (JRTI and OCISLY), an event that will likely become increasingly common as the company’s growing fleet of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters become increasingly flexible and interchangeable. It’s also equally possible that – over time – a sort of regional fleet of Falcon 9s will ultimately accumulate at each of SpaceX’s three launch pads, ensuring that there is always a rocket ready and waiting to launch a customer payload with short notice and minimal production or refurbishment-related delays.

 

Among many of Falcon 9’s almost sculpture-like qualities, Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin’s photos of the booster’s return exemplify just how reliably unperturbed Block 5 appears after performing multiple orbital-class launches, far from a rocket that traveled to ~90 km (~56 mi) while reaching speeds of 1.9 kilometers per second (6830 km/h, 4300 mph). SpaceX now reliably reuses Falcon 9’s titanium grid fins and landing legs with little to no refurbishment or touching up between launches and should eventually be able to retract the rocket’s legs after recovery, further cutting down on processing and refurbishment times.

Advertisement

Greater reusability, greater reliability?

As of today, it’s unclear how big of a role Falcon 9 Block 5 booster refurbishment has played into several hardware-readiness-related delays to several recent flight-proven Falcon 9 launches (SSO-A, SAOCOM 1A, and Iridium-8), but it is ultimately a fundamental reality of all manufacturing that rushing or ‘expediting’ work will typically hurt product quality and reliability and generally widen the cracks that mistakes can slip through. Interestingly, having a truly large fleet of flight-proven Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets on hand could dramatically improve the overall launch-readiness of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy and minimize chances of processing delays across the board.

SpaceX employees may already be to a point where they can plausible take stock of the company’s already-significant fleet of flight-proven Falcon 9s (B1046-B1049) to decide which booster is closest to launch-readiness before assigning it to a given mission. With four proven boosters on hand as of January 2019, options are fairly limited and regionality is likely to factor heavily into which booster launches which mission – there is no real cushion if problems arise with a given rocket or its preceding launch suffers its own delays. However, once that Falcon fleet grows to something like 10 or 15 booster, SpaceX could conceivably be able to guarantee booster availability regardless of prior launch delays or a given rocket’s condition after landing.

 

This  may well be far less sexy than SpaceX’s ultimate goal of drop-of-the-pin, 24-hour reusability for Falcon and BFR boosters, but the fundamental fact of the matter is that the company may well be able to derive a vast majority of that practice’s value by simply having a large, well-kept fleet of Falcon 9 boosters that are at least moderately reusable. For a hefty chunk of the probable near-term future, a large fleet of rockets each capable of launching every 30-60 days would likely be able to support launch cadences that are currently unprecedented for a single company or rocket (i.e. dozens of launches per year).

Advertisement

Time is money, of course, so minimizing the turnaround time of Falcon boosters will ultimately remain a major priority, especially as the prospect of Starlink launches loom.


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!

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