News
SpaceX readies 4th Falcon 9 booster for 10th launch and landing [webcast]
Update: SpaceX has delayed Starlink 4-6 and Falcon 9 B1060’s tenth launch and landing to a backup window scheduled no earlier than (NET) 9:02 pm EST, Tuesday, January 18th (02:04 UTC 19 Jan).
Initially aiming for January 17th, SpaceX pushed the mission to 7:04 pm EST, January 18th for “more favorable weather conditions for liftoff and booster recovery.” A backup window two hours later on the same day was likely selected for similar reasons. Tune in around 8:45 pm EST (01:45 UTC) to watch Falcon 9 B1060’s tenth launch and landing attempt live.
Four days after Falcon 9 B1058 became the third SpaceX booster to complete ten orbital-class launches, the company is set to repeat the feat a fourth time.
Unofficially revealed by airspace and maritime safety alerts on January 12th, SpaceX has confirmed plans to launch Starlink 4-6 – another batch of 49 laser-linked V1.5 satellites – no earlier than (NET) 7:26 pm EST, Monday, January 17th (00:26 UTC 18 Jan) from Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A. The same pad supported an identical launch (Starlink 4-5) on January 6th, requiring a brisk 11-day turnaround for a pad that’s all-time record is two Falcon launches in 10 days.
While technically “just” another Starlink launch, the mission will mark the first time two Falcon 9 boosters have launched for the tenth time back to back. On January 13th, Falcon 9 B1058 helped deliver 105 small rideshare satellites to orbit, completing its tenth successful launch and landing in the process. While there are only two other ten-flight boosters to compare against, B1058 crossed the milestone more than a third faster than either of its siblings, launching ten times in 19 months or once every ~59 days for the duration of its life.
When Falcon 9 B1060 lifts off with Starlink 4-6 on January 17th, 2022, it will do so in 18 months (~81 weeks), beating B1058’s days-old record (19 months or ~85 weeks) by about a month. Though there are several younger, less-flown boosters in SpaceX’s current Falcon fleet, none of them appear to be on track to more than marginally beat or match the records about to be set by B1058 and B1060. Based on SpaceX’s twice-achieved 27-day Falcon 9 turnaround record, it might technically be possible for the same booster to complete 10 launches in as few as 270 days (~39 weeks), employees have described those record turnarounds as “a mad rush” – probably not a sustainable pace for the current workforce, in other words.
Nonetheless, even if evidence continues to grow that the current iteration of Falcon Block 5 boosters are unlikely to average more than one launch every 50-60 days over their lives, SpaceX could still theoretically achieve an eyewatering launch cadence. For example, if SpaceX’s current fleet of nine operational Falcon boosters (including one converted Falcon Heavy core) can each achieve an average of one launch every 60 days starting now, SpaceX could feasibly launch more than once per week or ~54 times per year. If SpaceX also converts Falcon Heavy core B1053 into a Falcon 9, damaged Falcon 9 booster B1069 is able to enter the fleet, and the average turnaround time drops to 50 days, that 11-booster fleet could support up to 80 launches per year.
SpaceX’s three Falcon launch pads could theoretically support up to 90 launches per year if every single turnaround was as fast as each pad’s all-time record and no extended downtime was ever needed. In other words, in spite of just how far the Falcon Block 5 design appears to be from CEO Elon Musk’s long-stated dream of daily reuse, a fleet of just 15 Block 5 boosters averaging a conservative 60 days per launch could achieve an annual cadence that would force SpaceX to upgrade its launch pads to go any higher.
With Starship on the horizon, though, it’s no longer clear that SpaceX actually wants to push the Falcon family’s envelope to the point that another round of significant vehicle or pad upgrades are required. Unless Starship suffers catastrophic setbacks causing years of delays, it’s more likely than not that the Falcon family will peak around 60 launches per year (still incredibly impressive) before its likely retirement.
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
