News
SpaceX static fires Falcon 9 with satellites on board for the first time in years
SpaceX has successfully completed a Falcon 9 static fire ahead of Starlink’s first dedicated launch, breaking a practice that dates back to Falcon 9’s last catastrophic failure to date.
That failure occurred in September 2016 around nine minutes before a planned Falcon 9 static fire test, completely destroying the rocket and the Amos-6 communications satellite payload and severely damaging Launch Complex 40 (LC-40). Since that fateful failure, all 42 subsequent Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy satellite launches have been preceded by static fire tests without a payload fairing attached. This process typically adds 24-48 hours of work to launch operations, an admittedly tiny price to pay to reduce the chances of a rocket failure completely destroying valuable payloads. With Starlink v0.9, SpaceX is making different choices.
When supercool liquid oxygen ruptured a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) in Falcon 9’s upper stage, the resultant explosion and fire destroyed Falcon 9. Perhaps more importantly, the ~$200M Amos-6 satellite installed atop the rocket effectively ceased to exist, a loss that posed a serious threat to the livelihood of its owner, Spacecom. Posed with a question of whether saving a day or two of schedule was worth the potential destruction of customer payloads, both customers, SpaceX, and their insurers obviously concluded that static fires should be done without payloads aboard the rocket.
The only exceptions since Amos-6 are the launch debuts of Falcon Heavy – with a payload that was effectively disposable and SpaceX-built – and Crew Dragon DM-1, in which Falcon 9’s integration with Dragon’s launch abort system had to be tested as part of the static fire. Every other SpaceX rocket launch since September 2016 has excluded payloads during each routine pre-flight static fire.
SpaceX’s Spacecraft Emporium
Why the change of pace on this launch, then? The answer is simple: for the first time ever, SpaceX is both the sole payload/satellite stakeholder and launch provider, meaning that nearly all of the mission’s risk – and the consequences of failure – rest solely on SpaceX’s shoulders. In other words, SpaceX built and owns the Falcon 9 assigned to the mission, the 60 Starlink test satellites that make up its payload, and the launch complex supporting the mission.
Even then, if Falcon 9 were to fail during an internal SpaceX mission, customer launches could be seriously delayed by both the subsequent failure investigation failure and any potential damage to the launch complex. In short, although an internal mission does offer SpaceX some unique freedoms, it is still in the company’s best interest to treat the launch like any other, even if some customer-oriented corners are likely begging to be cut. Additionally, the loss of SpaceX’s first dedicated payload of 60 Starlink satellites could be a significant setback for the constellation, although it may be less significant than most would assume.
This is not to say that SpaceX won’t take advantage of some of the newfound freedom permitted by Starlink launches. In fact, CEO Elon Musk has stated that one of SpaceX’s 2019 Starlink missions will become the first to reuse a Falcon fairing. Additionally, SpaceX is free to do things that customers might be opposed to but that the company’s own engineers believe to be low-risk. Notably, Starlink missions will be an almost perfect opportunity for SpaceX to flight-prove reusability milestones without having to ask customers to tread outside of their comfort zones.
The sheer scale of SpaceX proposed Starlink constellation – two phases of ~4400 and ~12,000 satellites – means that the company will need all the latent launch capacity it can get over the next 5-10 years, at least until Starship/Super Heavy is able to support internal missions. Extraordinary packing density will help to minimize the number of launches needed, but the fact remains that even an absurd 120 satellites per launch (double Starlink v0.9’s 60) would still require an average of 12 launches per year to finish Starlink before 2030.
In the meantime, thoughts of a dozen or more annual Starlink launches are somewhat premature. SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch (deemed Starlink v0.9) is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 10:30 pm EDT (02:30 UTC), May 15th, and is being treated as an advanced but still intermediary step between the Tintin prototypes and a finalized spacecraft design. Still, in an unprecedented step, SpaceX has built sixty Starlink satellites for the development-focused mission, in stark contrast to the six satellites (still a respectable achievement) competitor OneWeb launched in February 2019 as part of its own flight-test program.
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
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.
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.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
