Connect with us

News

SpaceX delays Starlink doubleheader

Published

on

Update: To “allow additional time for pre-launch checkouts,” SpaceX has delayed Starlink 2-6 from January 30th to 8:15 am PST (16:15 UTC), January 31st and Starlink 5-3 from February 1st to February 2nd.

A pair of SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets are on track to round out the first month of 2023 and kick off the second with a Starlink double-header.

“To complete pre-launch checkouts,” SpaceX delayed its last launch of the month by 24 hours. The first Falcon 9 rocket will launch Starlink 2-6 and a D-Orbit rideshare payload no earlier than 8:29 am PST (16:29 UTC) on Monday, January 30th. The mission will lift off from SpaceX’s Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) SLC-4E pad and head southeast, skirting the California and Mexico coast. In case of bad weather or a minor technical issue, a backup window is available at 12:31 pm PST.

As few as 35.5 or 39.5 hours later, a second Falcon 9 rocket will lift off from SpaceX’s Florida-based NASA Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad around 3:02 am EST (08:02 UTC) on Tuesday, February 1st.

Advertisement

Starlink 2-6

Kicking off the pair, Starlink 2-6 will be SpaceX’s ninth Starlink rideshare mission since the company began manifesting third-party payloads on its internet satellite launches in June 2020. Falcon 9 will launch the mission’s main payload – a batch of 49 Starlink V1.5 satellites – to a semi-polar orbit that will see them cross Earth’s equator at an angle of 70 degrees. Ordinarily, the mission would carry 51 Starlinks, but SpaceX has removed a pair of satellites to make room for Italian space logistics company D-Orbit’s ION SCV009 spacecraft.

ION weighs around 160 kilograms (350 lb) on its own and is roughly the size of a large oven. D-Orbit designed the spacecraft to host fixed payloads and deploy rideshare satellites in orbit. It also has a propulsion system that allows it to provide “last-mile delivery services,” offering rideshare customers the ability to tweak the orbit their satellite ends up in. Space tugs like ION aim to give satellite owners some of the benefits of a dedicated rocket launch (custom orbit selection in particular) while retaining most of the cost savings rideshare launches enable.

A render of a D-Orbit ION vehicle.

After reaching orbit, Falcon 9 will deploy ION first, use thrusters to spin itself end over end, and then release all 49 Starlink satellites simultaneously. The spinning stage’s centrifugal force causes the satellite stack to naturally spread out within several hours. The satellites then use reaction wheels to stabilize their orientation, deploy solar panels to begin charging their batteries, and eventually use ion thrusters to climb to operational orbits.

ION SCV009 will attempt to test a new satellite separation system built by EBAD and demonstrate its ability to operate in very low Earth orbit (VLEO). The spacecraft will potentially lower itself to an altitude of 270 kilometers (170 mi).

Starlink 5-3

Starlink 5-3 will carry no rideshare payloads and will likely be nearly identical to Starlink 5-2, which SpaceX successfully launched on January 26th. The latest mission’s stack of 56 Starlink V1.5 satellites weighed 17.4 tons and was the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever launched. Starlink 5-3 is targeting the same orbit and will likely also carry 56 satellites.

Advertisement

Pad 39A last supported SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch on January 15th and has been quickly converted back to its single-core Falcon 9 configuration for Starlink 5-3. After the Starlink mission, Pad 39A has at least two Dragon spacecraft launches scheduled before SpaceX will need to convert it back to a triple-booster configuration for Falcon Heavy’s sixth launch.

SpaceX is scheduled to launch Crew Dragon’s Crew-6 astronaut transport mission no earlier than February 26th, and Cargo Dragon’s Spx-27 cargo delivery mission on March 11th. Falcon Heavy is scheduled to launch the giant ViaSat-3 communications satellite no earlier than March 24th.

Tune in below around 8:25 am PST (16:25 UTC) to watch SpaceX Starlink 2-6 launch live.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

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 denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

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.”

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

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.

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.

Continue Reading