News
SpaceX sends reused Falcon 9 booster west for first California Starlink launches
SpaceX has shipped the first of one or two flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters from Florida to California in the latest sign that the company is preparing to begin dedicated polar Starlink launches in the near future.
On May 27th, a Reddit post revealed a Falcon 9 booster arriving at Vandenberg Air/Space Force Base (VAFB), the home of SpaceX’s West Coast SLC-4E launch pad. Only truly useful for polar or high-inclination launches with satellites that need to orbit the Earth’s poles instead of the equator, SpaceX has only used SLC-4E twice in the last two years – once in June 2019 and most recently in November 2020.
Now, amidst a major hiring spree and rare new activity at a nearby Los Angeles port, SpaceX is clearly gearing up to return its SLC-4E launch pad to active duty.
B1049 began its career in Florida (Telstar 18V), moved to Vandenberg for its second flight (Iridium-8), went back to Florida for seven Starlink missions, and is once again returning to the best coast.— Michael Baylor (@nextspaceflight) May 27, 2021
Both recent West Coast Falcon 9 missions hosted booster landings at LZ-4, a landing zone situated a little over 1000 feet (300m) away from the launch pad. That freed up SpaceX to ship former West Coast drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRT) across the Panama Canal in August 2019, where it ultimately joined the company’s Florida rocket recovery fleet in early 2020 to support a major launch cadence ramp.
As a partial result, SpaceX was able launch Falcon 9 26 times in 2020, beating the previous record – 21 flights – by almost a quarter. In 2021, SpaceX is well on its way to smashing that annual launch record again and has completed 16 orbital launches with seven full months left in the year. That cadence is pushing SpaceX’s launch pads, recovery ships, and booster fleet to their limits. Due to the voracious demands of SpaceX’s almost weekly launch cadence, the company would only be shipping a workhorse booster to Vandenberg if there was a pressing need for it.
Said to be Falcon 9 B1049 by Next Spaceflight and NASASpaceflight reporter Michael Baylor, the booster that arrived at Vandenberg Air Force Base on Thursday has flown nine times – two of which it completed in February and May 2021. B1049 hasn’t been the most rapidly reusable of the fleet and is the oldest Falcon booster still operational after debuting in September 2018. However, SpaceX’s SLC-4E is relatively old itself and recruiting documents distributed as recently as 2021 indicated that the company’s West Coast resurgence was targeting a maximum cadence of one launch per month.
Virtually all of those missions will carry the company’s own Starlink satellites. On Wednesday, May 26th, SpaceX completed its 28th operational East Coast Starlink launch, effectively completing the first ‘tranche’ of the constellation once the satellites already in space reach their operational orbits. In April, SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell stated that polar Starlink launches would begin not long after that 28-launch milestones.
The day before B1049 arrived, SpaceX filed the first regulatory documents for at least six Vandenberg Starlink launches between July 2021 and January 2022 – one mission per month. It’s hard to say when the first launch will come. With B1049 now on site, FCC permits in work, and a new berth lease active in Port of Long Beach, the only real piece of the equation missing is a drone ship to support polar Starlink launches. According to said FCC documents, SpaceX will continue to push Falcon 9 to its limits on the West Coast, recovering boosters 640 km (~400 mi) downrange after polar Starlink launches.
SpaceX’s two operational drone ships – OCISLY and JRTI – currently have their hands full on the East Coast. Transporting either to California will take several weeks, limiting SpaceX’s East Coast launch cadence during that period. SpaceX and its contractors are currently hard at work completing a third drone ship – A Shortfall of Gravitas (ASOG), but past experience suggests that the vessel is at least a few months away from completion.
Once a drone ship has arrived at SpaceX’s new West Coast docks, though, the company will have almost everything it needs to kick off polar Starlink launches.
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
