News
SpaceX transports Falcon 9 to launch site ahead of Block 5’s second expendable launch ever
Photos published on July 28th by customer Spacecom show a sooty SpaceX Falcon 9 booster and fresh upper stage on their way to LC-40 for the launch of the AMOS-17 communications satellite, scheduled to lift off no earlier than 6:51 pm EDT (22:51 UTC), August 3rd.
Sadly, the booster will reportedly be expended during the launch. According to Spacecom, AMOS-17 – built by Boeing – is an undeniably large satellite, weighing more than 6500 kg (14,300 lb) and featuring a solar array wingspan of ~35m (115 ft). SpaceX has certainly launched larger satellites than AMOS-17 and still recovered their Falcon 9 boosters, but this mission is somewhat unique and SpaceX is obviously willing to go the extra mile in this case.
In a surprise development, Spacecom officially confirmed that AMOS-17 will be SpaceX’s second expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 launch in the rocket’s ~15 months of operations, following in the footsteps of its expendable December 2018 launch debut. This is more than a little disappointing, thanks in large part to the fact that SpaceX has developed Falcon 9 (and Heavy) reusability to such a level of maturity that fully expendable Falcon launches just feel wrong.
In fact, just a month ago, SpaceX reached a major milestone of reusability when it recovered two flight-proven Falcon Heavy boosters and became the first company in history to launch and land more orbital-class rocket boosters than it has expended (as of June 2019: 81 launched, 43 landed). SpaceX followed this up with landing #44 after Falcon 9 B1056.2 successfully completed its second launch on July 25th.
While expending a Block 5 booster that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated could launch upwards of 20-30 times is certainly disappointing, the sting of Block 5’s second expendable mission is at least soothed by the knowledge that it will be this booster’s third and final launch. The first expendable Block 5 launch – the US Air Force’s GPS III SV01 mission – made use of a brand new booster (B1054).
A (hopefully) worthy sacrifice
In a small way, Falcon 9 B1047’s premature demise could easily be viewed as a sort of symbolic eye-for-an-eye sacrifice. Although not a literal 1:1 replacement, AMOS-17 is still essentially a follow-on to Amos-6, destroyed on September 1st, 2016 when Falcon 9 suffered an exotic COPV failure that led to a massive explosion (Musk called it a ‘fast fire’).
Installed on top of the rocket during what was meant to be a pre-launch static fire test, the ~$200M+ Amos-6 satellite was not spared from the destruction and owner Spacecom ultimately received an insurance settlement it then used (in part) to purchase AMOS-17. Additionally, instead of accepting a cash payout from SpaceX, Spacecom chose the contractual alternative: a free Falcon 9 launch of their choice.
Is it a coincidence that a Block 5 booster is going to be expended as part of that replacement launch? Almost certainly, yes. At a minimum, SpaceX – essentially launching for free per a contractual agreement with Spacecom – has clearly decided along with Spacecom that putting all of Falcon 9’s energy into AMOS-17 is preferable to withholding margin for a landing.
With Falcon 9 B1047.2 in an expendable configuration, SpaceX can take a no-holds-barred approach towards delivering Spacecom’s AMOS-17 to the highest orbit possible. The higher the geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) Falcon 9 can launch AMOS-17 to, the faster the satellite can begin serving customers and thus generating revenue for Spacecom. Combined with the fact that more than half of AMOS-17’s massive 6.5-ton mass is chemical propellant, the spacecraft – pending a healthy launch and on-orbit commissioning – could be ready to start serving customers just a month or two after lift-off.
Falcon 9 B1047 will be missed, but the booster’s demise is an understandable cost of SpaceX prioritizing customer Spacecom’s launch experience above the company’s own best interests.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
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.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
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’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.
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.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
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.
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.
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.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
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.
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.
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.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
