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!
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.


