News
SpaceX readies Falcon 9 Block 5s for bi-coastal launches and landings
After several months of preparation behind the scenes, SpaceX’s second and third serial Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets are ready for the first launches of the upgraded vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL (CCAFS).
On the calendar for 1:50 am EDT/5:50 UTC July 22 and 4:39 am PDT/11:39 UTC July 25, SpaceX launches of Telstar 19V and Iridium NEXT-7 are set to mark the beginning of a new era for the company, where all future missions will fly with Block 5 hardware upgraded for reusability and reliability and attempt recovery almost without fail.

Three Falcon 9 boosters captured in various states of transport and testing over the last six weeks, two of which are B1047 and B1048. (Teslarati/Tesla Motors Club/Reddit/Facebook)
Bursting out of the expendable rocket cocoon
While it may be the case that an odd launch or two require a booster be expended to prevent schedule delays or carry an exceptionally heavy satellite to an exceptionally high orbit, it’s safe to say that such a mission with Block 5 boosters will be an anomaly. Somewhat iffy comments posted on Reddit recently claimed that Falcon Block 5 boosters would be able to easily (and rapidly) hop between roles as side and center boosters for both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. While wild, those claims, in retrospect, make a lot of sense, even if the reality of Block 5 booster interchangeability was a tad exaggerated.
If SpaceX truly wants to end the practice of expending rocket boosters, – and eventually fairings and upper stages, with any luck – the company will truly need to embrace a strategy that’s long been floated by executives like CEO Elon Musk and COO/President Gwynne Shotwell. That strategy dictates that SpaceX routinely use both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy as an almost interchangeable and rocket team capable of launching nearly every orbital payload conceivable today, all while remaining in fully or mostly reusable modes of operation.
- B1046 returned to Port Canaveral shortly after its May 4 debut, and is now being carefully analyzed as pathfinder hardware. (Tom Cross)
- OCISLY as seen by Tom Cross on March 5, readying for a busy future of rocket recoveries. (Tom Cross)
- At the request of a friend, artist David Romax put together a truly jaw-dropping collection of concept art featuring SpaceX’s BFR rocket and its Cargo and Crew spaceships. (Gravitation Innovation/David Romax)
At the moment, educated estimates of Falcon Heavy’s true performance margins with dual booster landings at SpaceX’s Florida landing zones and center core recovery aboard Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) suggest that the Block 5 version of Falcon Heavy should be capable of launching every commercial satellite planned or penciled in for launch over the next five years, at a minimum. Finally, while the Falcon family’s fuel choice of high-grade kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen make the rocket far more compact and energy-dense than alternatives, one downside of that choice is a loss of efficiency, although brute-force strength makes FH a competitive beast for all missions beyond Earth orbit (Mars, Venus, Saturn, asteroids, comets, etc).
However, a fully-expendable Block 5 Falcon Heavy seems to be at least 3X as unlikely as an expendable Block 5 Falcon 9. Nevertheless, CEO Elon Musk made it clear that a nominal Falcon Heavy launch where both side boosters were recovered at sea and the center booster expended could accomplish a full ~85-90% of an entirely expendable mission, and for roughly $95m. As such, a combination of reusable Falcon 9s, reusable Falcon Heavys, and ~30%-expendable Falcon Heavys could successfully complete every plausible commercial and non-commercial launch in the world and do so at the lowest cost for the better part of the next five years, at which point the company’s next-gen Big F____ Rocket (BFR) ought to be operational.
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2018
Telstar 19V and Iridium-7
With any luck, SpaceX’s next two launches will be the first huge step in the direction of that one-stop-shop for competitive transportation to orbit. Teslarati photographer Tom Cross will be setting up remote cameras for the Telstar 19V’s Florida liftoff later this evening, while our West Coast fellow and famed Mr Steven-stalker Pauline Acalin will be setting up her own set of remote cameras for VAFB’s Falcon 9 Block 5 debut on Tuesday.
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete— targeting July 25 launch of Iridium-7 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 21, 2018
On the East Coast, drone ship OCISLY has already departed Port Canaveral with a duo of support vessels and a dedicated tugboat, while the West Coast’s Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) will likely take leave of the Port of Los Angeles within 24 hours. Those dual, successful (?) rocket landings will hopefully mark the first of many dozens of missions for F9 boosters B1047 and B1048.
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
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
News
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk
SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.



