News
SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year
Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.
In December 2018, SpaceX successfully launched the first GPS III spacecraft aboard an expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket, kicking off a launch campaign – shared between SpaceX and ULA – that will likely last until 2023 or 2024. Thus far, ULA has won a single GPS III launch contract, scheduled for July 2019, while SpaceX has won three (with options for two more). Thanks to competition forcefully reintroduced by a 2014 SpaceX lawsuit, the USAF – and thus US taxpayers – are likely saving a minimum of $50M per GPS III launch.
In late 2018, SpaceX’s closer followers were surprised to discover that brand new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1054 – the first to be officially certified for a critical operational military launch – was to be expended, making no attempt to land. This was confusing for several reasons.
“If Falcon 9 [was to be] expended solely because of mission performance requirements, despite the oddly low payload mass (~3800 kg) and comparatively low-energy orbit (~20,000 km), the only possible explanation for no attempted recovery would be the need for Falcon 9’s upper stage to circularize the orbit after a long coast. However, the mission parameters the USAF shopped around for would have placed the GPS III satellite into an elliptical orbit of 1000 km by 20,181 km, an orbit that would almost without a doubt leave Falcon 9 with enough propellant for a drone ship recovery.”
— Teslarati.com, December 2018
As it turns out, there was, in fact, nothing unique about the elliptical, medium-energy orbit GPS III SV01 was placed in. According to external analysis of the Falcon 9 upper stage’s final deorbit activities, SpaceX had “plenty of extra performance available”, objectively indicating that that excess performance was intentionally removed from booster B1054 at the cost of its ability to land. The (unconfirmed) reason for this is quite simple: the US Air Force chose extreme – perhaps even excessive – caution to account for the minute chance that myriad failures might happen mid-launch.
To sacrifice, or not to sacrifice
According to a USAF statement made in mid-May, GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) has been officially classed as “available for launch”, jargon that means the satellite is fully assembled and has successfully completed extensive pre-launch testing. For SpaceX’s inaugural GPS III launch (SV01), a pathfinder that carried unique wait and likely took additional processing time, SpaceX and the USAF took roughly five months to go from shipping the satellite to Florida to going vertical atop Falcon 9. More likely than not, GPS III SV03 has already begun to be prepared for transport from California to Florida, meaning that SV03 is roughly 1-2 months ahead of the schedule SV01 followed ahead of its Falcon 9 launch debut.
So: the GPS III satellite is ready for launch. The next critical milestones will be the satellite’s transport to Florida and SpaceX’s completion of the mission’s USAF-grade Falcon 9. B1054’s technically unnecessary sacrifice thus raises a question for SpaceX’s next GPS III launch, currently scheduled no earlier than December 2018: will another fresh Falcon 9 Block 5 booster be sacrificed to the gods of Obsessively Cautious Margins?
The optimist in me wants to say, “Of course!” With GPS III SV01, SpaceX perfectly demonstrated Falcon 9’s performance and permitted the USAF the luxury of expending a brand new Falcon 9 booster to satisfy the customer’s desire for extremely cautious margins. The Falcon 9 upper stage’s luxuriously expensive (in terms of delta V) deorbit burns – performed after a several-hour cost in orbit – served as another definitive demonstration of the rocket’s intentionally underutilized performance. Having demonstrated a flawless launch with margins on margins, it seems reasonable that the US Air Force would permit SpaceX the freedom to recover Falcon 9 B105x after launching GPS III SV03.
On the other hand, the USAF and Department of Defense are not exactly known for their rational, evidence-based strategies of decision-making and procurement. As such, it’s safe to say that – without official info from SpaceX or the USAF – the answer to the question of whether SpaceX will need to continue expending valuable boosters for GPS launches is entirely up in the air – call it a 50-50 split.
In the meantime, GPS III SV03’s Falcon 9 booster is likely several months away from shipping off to SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facilities for static fire testing. Up next for SpaceX is a critical Falcon Heavy launch that could secure the rocket’s certification for US military launches, become the first USAF mission to utilize flight-proven SpaceX boosters, and pave the way for the USAF to develop a dedicated certification process for launching on commercially-developed reusable rockets.
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
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
