News
Elon Musk says a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is about to be "destroyed in Dragon fire"
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has officially confirmed that the company’s next Falcon 9 launch will destroy the flight-proven booster and upper stage “in Dragon fire”, a cryptic reference to the ultimate purpose of the sacrifice.
Known as SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, the mission is designed not to place any particular payload in orbit but to demonstrate that Crew Dragon – the company’s first human-rated spacecraft – can ensure astronaut safety even if faced with a worst-case scenario during launch. IFA will mark Crew Dragon’s second dedicated abort test and second launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, although the mission’s brand-new spacecraft will have to suffice with a suborbital jaunt before hopefully splashing down intact in the Atlantic Ocean.
If everything goes as planned, SpaceX has every intention of reusing the IFA Crew Dragon capsule on a future mission, although it’s unclear what that mission might look like. It’s unlikely that a reused SpaceX spacecraft will fly NASA astronauts anytime soon but it’s possible that the company will refurbish the vehicle for an entirely private astronaut launch or transform it into the first uncrewed launch of a next-generation Cargo Dragon (Dragon 2). Regardless, given the challenges posed by the In-Flight Abort, Crew Dragon’s survival is far from guaranteed.
Given that such an abort scenario is by definition a possibility, it’s likely the case that SpaceX’s engineers are almost certain that Crew Dragon should be able to survive such an ordeal, but the spacecraft will likely be pushed to its limits and it’s often much harder to ensure that everything works as intended at those limits.
In-Flight Abort by the numbers
Formerly scheduled to fly since-destroyed Crew Dragon capsule C201, SpaceX was forced to shuffle its spacecraft scheduling, reassigning Crew Dragon capsule C205 – originally expected to launch SpaceX’s first NASA astronaut mission – to support the In-Flight Abort. Featuring upgrades designed to prevent the failure mode that led to C201’s violent explosion, C205 will now have to survive a series of extremely challenging environments.
The IFA test is designed to prove that Crew Dragon can escape a failing Falcon 9 rocket during the most mechanically stressful point of launch. Occurring around 80-100 seconds after liftoff and known as Max Q, it’s the point where Falcon 9’s velocity and altitude combine to create the most friction and pressure the rocket’s windward parts will experience on their climb to orbit. For Crew Dragon, this means its SuperDraco abort engines will have to work fight upwards against air that is functionally (but not literally) much thicker than it is at other points during flight – a battle that will simultaneously put even more pressure (mechanical stress) on the spacecraft’s surfaces.
Purely from a numerical perspective, the pressure at Max Q is typically around 30-35 kPa (4.5-5 psi), which doesn’t sound like much but can easily become a force to be reckoned with when the surface area of the rocket or spacecraft being impacted is as large as Crew Dragon (let alone Starship). For reference, Crew Dragon capsules likely have a conical surface area on the order of 30,000 square inches (~19 m²), meaning that the spacecraft is subjected to a total mechanical load of 50-60 metric tons (~130,000 lbf) at Max Q.
Traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s) at an altitude of 28 kilometers (17 mi) at the point where Crew Dragon will ignite its abort thrusters and attempt to escape, that very act of escape will likely magnify the mechanical stresses on the capsule even further. During Crew Dragon’s 2015 Pad Abort, for example, the spacecraft went from a standstill to 155 m/s (345 mph) in 7 seconds – an average acceleration of about 2.3 Gs. Crew Dragon C205 could thus find itself traveling almost Mach 3 (more than a kilometer per second) just seconds after separating and may ultimately reach a peak altitude of almost 75 km (45 mi).
This is all to simply say that Crew Dragon is going to be subjected to an array of varying extremes in a very short period of time, during and after which it must still successfully control its orientation, avoid tumbling, detach its trunk section, and deploy a series of parachutes to achieve a fully-successful test. Additionally, the In-Flight Abort test will see Crew Dragon launch on an almost orbit-worthy Falcon 9 upper stage (lacking only a functional Merlin Vacuum engine) and thrice-flown booster B1046.
According to CEO Elon Musk, it simply is not going to be possible to prevent the historic booster – the first Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket ever launched – from being destroyed shortly after Crew Dragon attempts its escape. Once Dragon departs Falcon 9, the upper stage will likely be torn to shreds by the supersonic airstream suddenly buffeting it, ultimately exposing Falcon 9 B1046’s unchanged interstage – effectively a giant, open cylinder closed at its base.
Likely still travel supersonic, the results of the airstream entering Falcon 9’s interstage and finding no exit will likely be akin to a glass cup smashing mouth-first into a brick wall with a bowling ball taped to its bottom. Thankfully, Falcon 9 B1046 has already successfully supported three orbital-class launches since it debuted in May 2018, completing its third flight just seven months later. The booster will be missed and the opportunity cost (at least several more orbital-class launches) is definitely non-zero, but its sacrifice sill be for a good reason.
As Musk notes, if the In-Flight Abort goes as planned, it could pave the way for Crew Dragon’s first NASA astronaut launch – known as Demo-2 – as few as 6-8 weeks later. For now, Crew Dragon’s IFA test is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) January 18th, likely around 8 am EST (13:00 UTC).
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
