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.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
