News
SpaceX loses record-breaking rocket booster after sixth successful Starlink launch
SpaceX has suffered its second rocket landing failure of 2020 despite the fact that both lost Falcon 9 boosters successfully launched 60 Starlink satellites, an anomaly that CEO Elon Musk says will need a “thorough investigation”.
After a rare last-second launch abort on March 15th and a three-day range-related delay, Falcon 9 booster B1048 lifted off with 60 upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites on its fifth orbital-class mission. At least for the first two and half minutes, the booster performed precisely as intended, carrying a fueled upper stage and its ~16 metric ton (36,000 lb) payload to an altitude of 55 km (34 mi) and a velocity of 1.8 km/s (1.1 mi/s). However, about 10 seconds before the booster reached main engine cut-off (MECO) and stage separation, something went wrong.
While there is some ambiguity in his response, according to Musk, at least one of Falcon 9 B1048’s nine Merlin 1D engines performed an early shutdown before MECO. The rocket’s computer immediately accounted for the anomaly, extending the remaining eight-engine booster burn 5-7 seconds beyond the nominal timeline to ensure mission success. While the booster’s loss is still disappointing and the premature engine shutdown more than a little concerning, it’s critical to remember that mission success was ensured. Just 15 minutes after liftoff, the rocket’s upper stage successfully spun up and deployed another 60 Starlink satellites, bringing SpaceX’s operational constellation to an incredible ~350 satellites.
Based on live views available from SpaceX’s launch webcast, it appears that Falcon 9’s “early engine shutdown” is more of a euphemism for a fairly violent engine failure that triggered an instantaneous cutoff, preventing damage elsewhere. While SpaceX would certainly rather avoid in-flight engine failures, Falcon 9’s nine Merlin 1D booster engines are installed inside an aluminum ‘octaweb’ structure that transmits their thrust to the rest of the rocket but also effectively quarantines each engine in a blast-proof bunker.
Nevertheless, the rocket’s highly-attuned software and affected octaweb engine bunker did their jobs, instantly shutting the failing engine down while also preventing the explosion and resulting shrapnel from damaging the rest of the rocket. More likely than not, B1048’s autonomous decision to always put mission success before booster recovery lead the booster to expend a majority of the propellant needed for its landing attempt to make up for the 10 or so seconds operating at only ~89% thrust.
As a result, B1048 may have simultaneous subjected itself to a much more extreme atmospheric reentry and run out of propellant before it could complete (or maybe even start) its drone ship landing burn. There’s also a chance that the engine that failed was one of the three engines required for reentry and landing burns, an asymmetry that would be impossible to overcome on the fly. Ultimately, the booster likely impacted the ocean at a near-supersonic velocity, smashing it into aluminum confetti. Thankfully, the late B1048 had a record-breakingly productive career as an orbital-class booster, placing dozens of tons of payload into orbit over five successful launches. Its loss is regrettable but the booster has more than earned its keep.
Aside from two twice-flown Falcon Heavy Block 5 side boosters of unknown status and 2-3 new boosters assigned to critical NASA and US Air Force missions, SpaceX’s fleet is now down to just three flightworthy Falcon 9 boosters. This could dramatically limit its options for near-term commercial flights, as none of those rockets – even assuming flawless launch and landing debuts – will likely be ready for their first reuses until May or June. Meanwhile, B1051 and B1049 have three and four missions under their respective belt and both completed their last launches just 50-70 days ago, while B1059 flew for the second time just two weeks ago. Despite the fact that it successfully completed its fifth mission, B1048’s in-flight engine failure will almost certainly delay upcoming launches, although the degree of those delays is up for debate.
Up next for SpaceX is SAOCOM 1B, an Argentinian radar satellite set to become the first payload launched into a polar orbit from the US East Coast in half a century. Before B1048’s anomaly, the mission was scheduled to launch no earlier than March 30th and could use any of unassigned boosters described above
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
