Connect with us

News

SpaceX Falcon 9 “fleet leader” returns to port after record reuse

Looking surprisingly indifferent to the experience, Falcon 9 booster B1049 successfully completed its seventh orbital-class mission when it returned to Port Canaveral on November 28th. (Richard Angle)

Published

on

SpaceX is well and truly 70% of the way to a longstanding rocket reusability target after successfully launching and landing the same Falcon 9 booster on seven orbital-class missions.

Known as Falcon 9 B1049, the record-breaking rocket booster and new “fleet leader” safely returned to Port Canaveral aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) on Saturday, November 28th. Aside from a minor hiccup and 24-hour delay from a vague need for “additional mission assurance,” Falcon 9’s seventh-flight debut was as flawless as ever, simultaneously marking the rocket’s 100th launch overall and 99th success after a decade of operation.

Crystallized in May 2018 and floated many times before by CEO Elon Musk in years prior, SpaceX’s primary goal for Falcon 9 reusability has been ten flights per booster with near-zero refurbishment between launches for several years. As such, Falcon 9 B1049’s latest success means that SpaceX is just three flights away from crossing that partly symbolic but still spectacular milestone.

Falcon 9 booster B1049 after flights six and seven, August and November 2020. (Richard Angle)

For as long as SpaceX and Musk have been transparent about their desire to implement reusability into orbital-class rockets, entrenched competitors like Arianespace and United Launch Alliance (ULA) have almost continuously responded with vague internal studies that conclude that changing their ways is counterproductive. Often, somewhat arbitrary figures arise, with ULA executives frequently falling back on the excuse that SpaceX-style reusability only makes financial sense if a booster fleet averages at least ten flights each.

Arianespace executives have echoed similar sentiments over the years and more recently implied that it would only ever make sense to invest in SpaceX-style reusability if the conglomerate could guarantee at least 30 launch contracts annually.

Advertisement
SpaceX process Falcon 9 B1046 after a record third launch and landing in December 2018. (Pauline Acalin)

Instead of complaining and splitting theoretical hairs for the better part of a decade, SpaceX simply started working. After many tries, the first successful Falcon 9 booster landing came in December 2015. ~15 months later, SpaceX reused an orbital-class rocket booster on a commercial mission for the first time ever. Another 14 months after that, Falcon 9 Block 5 debuted with a bevy of upgrades focused on reusability and reliability, and that same Falcon 9 booster became the first to launch on three orbital-class missions just seven months later.

Falcon 9 B1049 debuted in September 2018. 26 months later, the rocket has completed its seventh successful launch and landing, averaging one orbital satellite launch every ~110 days – an impressive feat for the fourth Block 5 booster ever built. Newer boosters like Falcon 9 B1058 are already improving on the records of their predecessors, managing an average of one launch every 60-80 days.

Falcon 9 B1049’s business end and landing legs are pictured here after flight #6 (Aug 2020) and flight #7 (Nov 2020). (Richard Angle)

Even if ten flights were to inexplicably become a permanent design limit for all Falcon operations, SpaceX’s current fleet of eight flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters would still be capable of singlehandedly supporting at least 54 more launches, with another 16 on top of that if two dormant Falcon Heavy side boosters are converted for single-core use. SpaceX is unlikely to stop producing Falcon boosters for at least another year or two, adding at least 6-10 more first stages to the fleet to support dozens of crucial Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches over the next 5-10 years.

In simpler terms, it’s almost time for SpaceX’s competitors to move their goalposts again. If B1049 can mirror its 2020 average of one launch every ~80 days, the Falcon 9 booster could be ready for its tenth flight as early as Q3 2021 (with B1051 not far behind it).

(Richard Angle)

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Continue Reading