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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.
The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.
The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The New York Post initially reported the story.
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
This appears to be unequivocal proof she denied the pay package because of her own personal beliefs and not the law.
Corruption. https://t.co/8dvgcfYuvh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”
The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.
McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.
The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.
Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.
After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.
Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.
The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.
Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.
A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.
News
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.
In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.
Tesla Model Y vs. Tesla Cybercab:
✅ Overall Length:⁰Model Y: 188.7 inches (4,794 mm)⁰Cybercab: ~175 inches (≈4,445 mm)⁰→ Cybercab is about 13–14 inches shorter (roughly the length of a large suitcase).
✅ Overall Width (excluding mirrors):⁰Model Y: 75.6 inches (1,920 mm)… https://t.co/PsVwzhw1pe pic.twitter.com/58JQ5ssQIO
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.
That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.
Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.
The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.
Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.
🚨 We caught up with the Tesla Cybercab today in The Bay Area: pic.twitter.com/9awXiK26ue
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.
It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.
It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.
In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.
At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.
The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
It sounds as if Tesla could be considering a new vehicle to fit the mold of what a larger family would need, and as fans have been demanding it for several years and the company is phasing out the Model X, its only family-geared vehicle, it sounds as if it could be the perfect time.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company is developing a new vehicle, and it will be “way cooler than a minivan.”
It sounds as if Tesla could be considering a new vehicle to fit the mold of what a larger family would need, and as fans have been demanding it for several years and the company is phasing out the Model X, its only family-geared vehicle, it sounds as if it could be the perfect time.
There are a handful of things Musk could be talking about, and as many Tesla owners have wanted a vehicle along the lines of a minivan for hauling around their family, speculation has persisted about what the company would do in terms of developing something for that exact use case.
There were several options, and some of them seemed to be already available. Musk posted on X yesterday that the Cybertruck has three sets of isofix attachments and could fit three child seats or three adults, and it seemed to be a way to deflect plans for a new, larger vehicle as a Model Y L appeared to be present at Giga Texas.
There is also the Robovan, the large people mover that Tesla unveiled at the “We, Robot” back in 2024.
Something way cooler than a minivan is coming
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 25, 2026
However, it seems Tesla could be developing something like a CyberSUV, something that is going to be large enough to haul around a car full of kids, but could be developed with the company’s aesthetic of the company’s most recent releases: this would likely include a light bar and a more sleek, futuristic look.
We’ve mocked up some potential looks for Tesla’s speculative vehicle in the past:
Tesla has teased the potential of a CyberSUV in the past, showing off clay models that it developed back in September in a teaser video called “Sustainable Abundance.”
Fans and owners have been calling for this development for a very long time, and it seems like Tesla might be ready to finally answer the call on a large SUV. With the segment being dominated by combustion engine vehicles, Tesla could truly disrupt the large SUVs that have been mainstays.
The Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon would feel some additional pressure, and it would be possible for Tesla to infiltrate some of those sales and pull consumers to electric powertrains.
As the Model S and Model X sunset process is truly hitting full swing, it might be time to consider Tesla’s next option in terms of vehicle development.
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. Tunnel Vision Challenge ends with a surprise for Louisiana, Maryland and Dallas
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
