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.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
SpaceX has announced a new target date for the thirteenth test flight of Starship: Monday, July 20, with the launch window opening at 6:45 p.m ET/5:45 p.m. CT.
This is the first rescheduling attempt of Starship’s 13th test flight. It was set to launch last night, but SpaceX scrubbed the launch attempt.
🚨 SpaceX is now looking at Monday, July 20th at 6:45 p.m ET/5:45 p.m. CT for the 13th test flight of Starship pic.twitter.com/7s8aMJV5Ge
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 17, 2026
CEO Elon Musk revealed that some of the engines on Starship did not start, which automatically triggers a launch abort. Two of the Raptor engines will be removed and replaced.
To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed & replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 17, 2026
SpaceX officially announced the new launch window this morning.
Starship’s 13th test launch comes with a few new objectives, but SpaceX does not plan to attempt a catch of the booster, which it has done several times in the past.
For Starship’s Upper Stage, there are some adjustments to ensure engine reusability that will be assessed during the ascent, and 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites are also set to make their way into space. SpaceX also plans to attempt an in-space relight of a single Raptor engine, which is a critical demonstration for future orbital deorbit, refueling, and deep space maneuvers.
Ultimately, it will splash down in the Indian Ocean.
The continuous tests help SpaceX advance the Starship program toward eventual full reusability, operational Starlink V3 deployment, and future missions, which include NASA’s Artemis program.
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
Tesla enters two new markets on two different continents in one week
