News
SpaceX Starlink launch suffers third weather scrub, next attempt Tuesday
Update: Multiple weather constraint violations forced SpaceX to scrub today’s Starlink-12 launch attempt less than half an hour before liftoff, marking the mission’s third weather-related scrub and fourth abort overall since mid-September. As of October 4th, the US Air Force 45th Space Wing predicted a 40% chance of weather violation.
SpaceX’s fifth Starlink-12 launch attempt is scheduled no earlier than 7:29 am EDT (11:29 UTC) on Tuesday, October 6th. The mission-specific T-1 weather forecast predicts a 70% chance of favorable conditions.
On the heels of a rare last-second Falcon 9 launch abort, SpaceX is closing in on its third attempt to launch the 12th batch of operational Starlink satellites.
Scheduled to lift off from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Launch Complex 39A (Pad 39A) no earlier than (NET) 7:51 am EDT (11:51 UTC) on Monday, October 5th, Starlink-12 was originally scheduled to launch in mid-September. Bad weather at the Atlantic Ocean landing zone caused a ten-day delay from September 17th to the 27th, followed by a pad weather delay on the 28th.
After a ULA Delta IV Heavy mission with range priority was scrubbed for the seventh time on September 30th, SpaceX tried to launch Starlink-12 again but suffered an abort – later blamed on a pad sensor – seven seconds before liftoff. Finally, a new Falcon 9 launch with an upgraded GPS III satellite aboard was aborted just two seconds before liftoff on October 2nd. Moved from NET October 3rd to the 5th just prior to GPS III SV04’s separate launch delay, Starlink-12 is now up next.
Interrupting what has otherwise been a much-improved level of launch readiness and schedule reliability for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy’s Block 5 upgrade, this recent string of delays – while mostly the result of weather and ULA’s own NROL-44 launch delays – has even become a concern for CEO Elon Musk. Currently focused on building out SpaceX’s new Starship factory and pushing towards the rocket’s first high-altitude and orbital test flights in Boca Chica, Texas, Musk stated that he would be flying to Cape Canaveral “to review hardware in person” on the week of October 5th.
Musk also says that SpaceX is “doing a broad review of launch site, propulsion, structures, avionics, range, & regulatory constraints” to determine if an apparent goal of “48 launches” in 2021 is feasible.
To be fair to SpaceX, most of the plague of delays suffered by the company in the last month has been caused by a mixture of weather and the range’s preferential treatment of ULA’s “national security” NROL-44 launch. Additionally, of an impressive seven ULA NROL-44 launch attempts between August 26th and September 30th, just a single one was caused by weather – the remaining six a result of a wide variety of technical software and hardware bugs. SpaceX’s Starlink-12 and GPS III SV04 missions have only suffered one technical launch abort each on September 30th and October 2nd.
In other words, short of upgrading Falcon rockets to launch and land in worse weather conditions, most of SpaceX’s delays have been largely out of the company’s control, while ULA’s NROL-44 struggles demonstrate just how much worse things could be. According to an unofficial analysis of 44 Falcon Block 5 launches since May 2018, only four technical launch aborts have been triggered by a booster fault. Pad-caused aborts have been roughly as common, meaning that 1 in roughly 6 to 8 SpaceX launches suffers some kind of abort shortly before liftoff, on average.

Altogether, Falcon Block 5 rockets have been relatively dependable for on-time, on-schedule launches even if SpaceX has struggled with more repeated delays than usual in the last few months. To achieve anywhere close to 48 launches annually, however, major improvements will need to be made, likely including upgrades to whatever is responsible for Falcon 9’s weather constraints. As of October 2020, SpaceX has never launched four times in one month (or four times in the same ~30-day period). To launch 48 times in one year, SpaceX will need to average four launches per month. That, of course, in no way accounts for the possibility that 2020-esque summer weather could functionally cut 4-8+ weeks off of Falcon 9’s annual availability.
Regardless, SpaceX will begin live coverage of the third Starlink-12 launch attempt around 7:35 am EDT (11:35 UTC). Tune in to (hopefully) catch the company’s 17th launch this year.
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
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
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.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
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.