SpaceX
SpaceX to launch replacement satellite two years after fateful Falcon 9 failure
On September 1st, 2016, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket suffered a catastrophic anomaly during a static fire test, causing an explosion that completely destroyed the vehicle, the launch pad, and Spacecom’s $200M Amos-6 satellite. This ultimately triggered a months-long investigation into what CEO Elon Musk described as “the most difficult and complex failure [SpaceX has] had in 14 years.”
More than two years and 41 successful consecutive launches later, SpaceX and Israeli satellite operator Spacecom are reportedly aiming to launch Amos-6’s replacement – Amos-17 – as early as the end of May, around three months from now.
Business in Brief: Spacecom says it will launch Amos 17 satellite within four months https://t.co/nkIFd7DzHJ
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) February 25, 2019
Nearly two and a half years distant, the reverberations of SpaceX’s Amos-6 Falcon 9 failure continue to reverberate loudly. Aside from demanding changes to the operational procedures used to launch Falcon 9 and forcing an extensive critical analysis of design, production, and qualification methods, SpaceX has spent countless resources pursuing an extensive redesign of the component pointed at as the primary source of the explosion that destroyed Falcon 9. Known as composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs), SpaceX uses the bottles to store extremely high-pressure helium (5000+ psi, 340+ bar) to pressurize Falcon 9’s RP-1 and oxygen tanks, as well as nitrogen to power its cold-gas maneuvering thrusters.
According to a failure analysis performed by SpaceX with NASA, the USAF, the NTSB, and the FAA, it was concluded that the cause could be traced back to a complex series of events centered around those helium COPVs. Meant to be the first mission to utilize subcooled propellant and oxidizer, the extreme cold in the upper stage LOx tank caused solid oxygen to form on the outside of the COPVs located inside it. While complex, the gist was that liquid (and perhaps solid) oxygen could have formed around the outside of the COPV, potentially finding its way in between the carbon fiber wrappings, creating a buckle in the fibers, and ultimately causing fibers to break. Near the end of this process, those breaking fibers could have created a spark or breached the helium tank, instantaneously overpressurizing the upper stage and causing an explosion.
NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) and NASA itself have aired concerns about those COPVs since 2016, triggering an extraordinarily comprehensive program of testing, characterization, and redesign of the COPVs SpaceX uses. They have now successfully flown on 3-4 Falcon 9 launches under the same expedited propellant loading conditions that an identical rocket will undergo in preparation for Crew Dragon launches. CEO Elon Musk spent several minutes discussing the redesigned COPVs in a May 2018 press conference and did not mince words when he described them as “by far the most advanced pressure vessel[s] ever developed by humanity.”
“The amount of testing and research that’s gone into COPV safety is gigantic. This is by far the most advanced pressure vessel ever developed by humanity. It’s nuts. And I’ve personally gone over the test design, I’ve lost count how many times. But the top engineering minds at SpaceX have agonized over this. We’ve tested the living daylights out of it. We’ve been in deep, deep discussions with NASA about this. And I think we’re in a good situation.” – SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, May 2018
NASA and ASAP concerns have since been alleviated, culminating on February 22nd with an official announcement that NASA was ready for SpaceX to conduct the first uncrewed launch of its Crew Dragon spacecraft on March 2nd. It’s thus almost poetic that customer Spacecom chose the same week to announce a target date for the Falcon 9 launch of a satellite built to replace the destroyed Amos-6, known as Amos-17. Soon after the Amos-6 disaster, Spacecom settled on a free SpaceX launch contract for a future satellite instead of an immediate $50M payout. Procured for around $160M, SpaceX is reportedly targeting the launch of the Boeing-built satellite during the week of May 27th, likely from Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) – the same pad that suffered extensive damage during the September 2016 anomaly.
- Spacecom’s Boeing-built Amos-17 satellite. (Boeing)
- Falcon 9 shows off some of its COPVs in a tour of SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory. (SpaceX)
- An impressive view of Crew Dragon (DM-1), Falcon 9 B1051, and its upper stage. (SpaceX)
Since Amos-6, SpaceX’s record of reliability has been effectively spotless and now stands at an impressive 41 consecutive successful launches, including Falcon Heavy’s February 2018 debut. Aside from the sheer volume of launches SpaceX performed in a little over two years, the company has pushed full speed ahead towards its goal of routinely reusing Falcon 9 boosters. Less than 24 months after the first commercial reuse, SpaceX has landed Falcon 9 boosters 34 times and reused them 20 times, numbers that are only likely to grow in 2019.
Set to occur shortly after the planned launch debuts of Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy (commercially), SpaceX will hopefully be able to place Amos-17 in a healthy orbit and thus effectively retire the Amos-6 saga before the second half of 2019.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Elon Musk
SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
Elon Musk
OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership
OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.
In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.
That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.
SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.
Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.
Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.


