News
SpaceX shifts Falcon 9 booster from landing pad to drone ship after anomaly
SpaceX officially confirmed that it will move the location of a Falcon 9 booster’s post-launch recovery in order to better preserve the site of Crew Dragon’s catastrophic April 20th failure.
Instead of returning the booster to one of SpaceX’s two Cape Canaveral Landing Zones (LZs), SpaceX has applied for an FCC permit to land the rocket less than 20 miles (~30 km) off the coast of Florida on the drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). The culprit for the last-second change of plans is a catastrophic failure of Crew Dragon that spread debris throughout SpaceX’s Landing Zone facilities, debris that will now be critical for the process of anomaly resolution. Landing a Falcon 9 booster at LZ-1 or 2 would invariably spread Crew Dragon’s debris and complicate the failure investigation even further.
Much like a tornado passing through a crime scene would likely hamper the value of that crime scene and any related investigations, a Falcon 9 booster landing at the scene of a fresh accident investigation would be an extremely unwelcome complication. Even with just one Merlin 1D engine firing during a Falcon 9’s landing burn, the engine exhaust departs the nozzle traveling approximately 2.7 km/s (1.7 mi/s) and could easily send Crew Dragon remnants hundreds or even thousands of feet away and incinerate smaller debris. Given that Crew Dragon’s explosion appears to have been highly energetic, many, many pieces will already be spread many hundreds – and perhaps thousands – of feet around the incident.
Crew Dragon is an extremely complex spacecraft. Even the tiniest of fragments could potentially be critical to the successful completion of the explosion investigation, especially if the fault began somewhere in capsule C201’s many hundreds of feet of plumbing. The pipes, valves, and pumps that make up Crew Dragon’s propellant management system have many hundreds (if not thousands) of small parts that must work without issue to safely pressurize and handle the spacecraft’s hypergolic propellant.
Cargo Dragon set for launch
Despite Crew Dragon’s serious failure and the need to change Falcon 9’s booster recovery plans at the last moment, SpaceX still appears to be working to maintain the planned launch date. The instantaneous window is set for 4:22 am ET (08:22 UTC), April 30th, delayed five days from the original April 25th target. Based on an update provided by NASA last week, those delays are the result of International Space Station (ISS) scheduling and additional time needed for payload preparations. Orbital-ATK’s (now “Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems” or NGIS) uncrewed Cygnus spacecraft successfully berthed with the ISS on April 19th, followed by the station’s astronauts unloading the three metric tons of cargo it contained over the next several days.
Once Cygnus operations have been completed, the ISS astronauts will be able to start preparing for Cargo Dragon’s CRS-17 resupply mission, likely carrying another three or four metric tons of pressurized cargo. Although the logistics of unloading, unpacking, and stowing the contents of hundreds of packages of consumables, hardware, tools, science experiments, and more is not exactly thrilling, the reality is that the task takes a surprising amount of time and care. Of the maximum six astronauts aboard the ISS at any given moment, only a few of them are able to focus exclusively on the cargo logistics at the same time as time-sensitive science experiments must be immediately set up to avoid ruining the data produced. Furthermore, although the ISS is truly massive, there are only a handful of berthing and docking ports and the actual habitable volume can be cramped, as are the ports between the station and visiting spacecraft.
An unknown Falcon 9 booster – perhaps B1056 – will perform a routine static fire test at SpaceX Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) five or so days before launch, likely within the next 48 hours. Soon after, Falcon 9 will be mated with CRS-17’s flight-proven Cargo Dragon capsule and expendable trunk before rolling back out to LC-40. If the FCC works fast and grants SpaceX’s updated booster recovery license in the next few days, CRS-17 should remain on track for an April 30th launch.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
