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.
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
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
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.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
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.